Talk:Foreign relations of Tibet

Ran, the Troll of Tibet Related Articles

 * do not feed the troll Ran. He is a pro communist china vandal and nationalist. Me 04:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ran, what is your problem? Why are you reverting all my edits? Explain yourself. Stop trolling me. Me 17:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you have the han's picture on the article on Tibet? Put some Tibetan picture. Me 17:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Article need cleaning up
This article needs some cleaning up. Certain parts read like opinion or story telling and not up to the standard of factual history


 * "In early 1943 Tolstoy continued into China arriving at Lanzhou in June, 1943. The Tibetans were a neutral nation during the war, while China was not. This tends to show that Tibet was autonomous at that time."

Is this Tolstoy opinion, an entry of his journal or the contributor’s own opinion?
 * Neither. This was added by a Wikipedia editor, possibly even me, although I've not looked in the history. It is a true statement as the British and Chinese were unable to negotiate passage for even non-military materials during the war due to objections by the Tibetans, see page 5, Orphans of the Cold War, but is hard to source, as any negative thing is. Basically Tibet did nothing during the war. I have, however, removed the passage. The article's silence on the Tibetan "war effort" should speak loudly enough. Fred Talk 22:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "...Tibetan passports, and, again, a US officer in Hong Kong, thus defeating the efforts of the US State Department and the British Foreign Office to deny use of the Tibetan passports, a small victory for the supposedly unsophisticated Tibetans"

Who claim the Tibetans are unsophisticated? (WannabeAmatureHistorian 20:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Are you asking for a source? Fred Talk 22:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Bias/Unbalanced
Article appears to contain statements that appear to support the position of China having legitimite sovereignty over the area claimed by the Nation-State of Tibet. I will place the appropriate flag on this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tibet is not recognized as an independent state by any other. This article documents relations with other states, even treaties, but none of them resulted in formal recognition. Legitimacy of Chinese sovereignty might be another matter in light of international recognition of a right to self-determination. The degree to which there is recognition of such a right and how that right might be applied to Tibet might be a section of this or some other article on Tibet. Fred Talk 22:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Harrer
Harrer was not in Tibet 1938 (Nazi German SS expedition to Tibet). I asked for reference, but I know this totally wrong. References to Harrer should be deleted from this paragraph.--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Tolstoy and Dolan's report
"Outline of Journey and Observation Made by Ilia Tolstoy, Captain, AUS and Brooke Dolan. First Lt., AC," September 1943, is in possession of the CIA. It was assigned the document number IOLR L/P&S/12/4229. It may or may not remain classified. The photographs were published in A Portrait of Lost Tibet, ISBN 0030504511 As the work of employees of the United States government made in the performance of their duties the text would be in the pubic domain if it could be accessed. Fred Talk 22:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

POV editing
Although done nominally in the name of NPOV this edit is itself a tendentious edit with a distinct point of view, two in fact: one that the British manipulated the status of Tibet in some way. The other that the nation of Tibet has somehow creased to exist and thus could not engage in foreign relations. Fred Talk 00:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly the external links have a point of view. That is to be expected. We have an editorial policy of neutral point of view editing, not removal of one or the other point of view. Thus removing them is a violation of our core editing policy. I'm sure a quality external link setting forth the point of view of the Chinese government could be found to balance the links. The link to legal documents is particularly useful, while the link to images is extraordinarily interesting. Fred Talk 01:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The text (to be clear, I reverted to a longstanding version of the article away from your recent and distinct POV changes) does not take a position on whether the British 'manipulated' the status of Tibet, but that Britain had wanted to, which is mainstream historical record. And, to use the terminology correctly, the nation of Tibet [at least according to sane people] has not "ceased to exist", but the sovereign state of Tibet certainly has. There are no more incidents that can be construed as foreign relations. Are you arguing that Tibet still conducts independent foreign relations? You should then explicate this argument to be examined, instead of just alluding to it, because that viewpoint is quite fringe.


 * With respect to the British, we need to create an expanded section on British activities and goals; perhaps using Tibet & Its History by Hugh Richardson or others with a British perspective as a source. The current language in the introduction seems inappropriate in that place, although it may be a quote from Goldstein. It would be much more appropriate in a section on British diplomatic efforts. Fred Talk 04:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is it not appropriate? Quigley (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not an article about British imperialism. Fred Talk 13:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * British imperialism greatly impacted the foreign relations of Tibet, and even Tibet's ability to have them. Quigley (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the external links, the content guidelines on external links forbid "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research", and says, "On articles with multiple points of view, avoid providing links too great in number or weight to one point of view, or that give undue weight to minority views." All of those links do both of the prohibited manipulations to advance the minority viewpoint of an independent Tibet during the early 20th century period.


 * Actually de facto independence during that period is the majority view. Events like the invasion from Nepal and the peace treaty with Nepal are hard to understand but certainly part of history as was the treaty with Mongolia made in 1920. I'm not sure there is anything on that website that actually misleads; it is the leap to a conclusion that is the issue. Certainly the British did not send an expedition to Peking to force Chinese capitulation when they wanted to open up trade with Tibet. I think one of the Chinese white papers on the question of sovereignty, which I put into the external links of the main article some time ago should serve to balance. Fred Talk 04:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The term 'de facto independence' is not a legal status, and is therefore subject to various interpretations. But when I said 'independent', I meant it in the way the term is universally understood: being recognized by other recognized states, and therefore having some sovereign redress when you are invaded. Independence campaigners conveniently leave out a "de facto" or "functionally" or whatever hedge is needed when they talk about the period. The website is multifariously misleading in what it includes and omits. Included are "treaties" with non-states (then-Mongolia) or invalidated agreements with states (Simla), and excluded are agreements that affirm Chinese sovereignty (Anglo-Chinese). The website has much more propaganda content than the short Chinese white paper, which doesn't touch on many of these issues, so the white paper link won't fix it. What will fix it is prose surveying the academic assessments of various events, like the trade delegation, which will enable adequate NPOV treatment. Quigley (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Quigley, I think that understanding of "independent" is far from universal. The other main way of looking at independence considers whether a government is able to act like a sovereign power inside its own borders, which includes both the practical implementation of laws and the assorted symbols of authority such as flags, currency, etc. Having an army falls into both categories.&mdash;Greg Pandatshang (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The article strongly emphasizes recognition as the essential element for statehood. It could be more strongly emphasized; although I don't high short of large bold text in red, but I don't think that justifies suppression of a point of view, and lots of interesting documents and images. I think there are several white papers, some perhaps more detailed. Fred Talk 13:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The article does not emphasize recognition as the essential element for statehood. What it emphasizes are periods where Tibetans traveled abroad, or when foreigners were received in Tibet, construing these as 'foreign relations' and using these fragments to make the case for 'de facto independence', conveniently omitting the instances where government of Tibet representatives, even in that time of "de facto independence", paid deference to the central government, such as when they participated in the drafting of the Republican Chinese constitution. There are already articles, Tibetan sovereignty debate being the principle one, that are better venues for addressing the complex issues.


 * There is no "suppression of a point of view"; this point of view is already overrepresented. I already explained above and below why the documents and images are manipulative, and therefore should be addressed in prose where they can be balanced, instead of just linking to unadulterated pro-Tibetan independence propaganda. Chinese white papers do not refute or explain many of these supposed 'legal' documents, or the subject of these images case by case; details about them are to be found in scholarly articles, about the Simla Convention for example. They can be referenced in the text. Quigley (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

'Interesting' is subjective, but the images are definitely manipulative. Picture after picture of Tibetan currency, flags, and soldiers during the contentious early 20th century period strongly suggest to the uninformed reader an independent Tibet, but legally these superficial indicators do not necessarily indicate statehood. This is something that can and should be discussed in balanced prose. All of the important 'legal documents', Simla and the like, are discussed here with the appropriate context, such as Simla's possible illegality. Any other material both important and not mentioned here should be cited to those links but balanced here, to maintain editorial discretion, better the article, and improve its conformance with NPOV. Quigley (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I need to take a better look at the content, but the sheer volume of the resources there make including the link worthwhile. It is up to the reader to sort out the matter, not our role to protect them from information, which unquestionably is relevant, and only an adequate google search away in any event. The ultimately futile attempts of the Tibetan government to assume the trappings of a sovereign state by doing such things as issuing passports and attempt to engage in diplomatic relations are the proper content of this article. Fred Talk 04:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The volume of the 'resources' does not matter, if they are all deceptive or frivolous or so presented, which most of the material is. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm; it is supposed to present information neutrally; not outsource it to advocacy websites. As I said before, the state-like symbols (which are not as recurring and replete, by the way, as you seem to assume) can and should be addressed in the prose of the article; we seem to agree on this. The external links add no unique value; they just slant. Quigley (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Three links are not a linkfarm. Neutral point of view contemplates vigorous presentation of both points of view. Characterizing all material in those links as deceptive or frivolous is gross overstatement. Some of it may be; but so is Chinese government propaganda, a thigh bone trumpet or a cup made from a human skull is hardly evidence of barbarism, as Chinese propagandists would have the naive believe. Fred Talk 13:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The links themselves are collections of links, and they are completely deceptive in both what they present, what they don't, and the insinuating tone in which they are presented. Neutral point of view contemplates vigorous analysis of each issue and event called 'foreign relations', and the explanation of why they may or may not be considered such, not giving each "side" its own soapbox, because again, government of China documents do not and cannot constantly address the desperate minutiae that the Tibetan exile media machine keeps coming up with, just as scientists usually do not bother to address pseudoscience.


 * Having some foreign bureaucrat stamp your identity document is not evidence of recognition of statehood or the capacity for independent foreign relations, as Tibetan exile propagandists would have the naive believe. But this information would be found in passport law, rather than in a Chinese government document. I repeat my recommendation; integrating the important material into prose. There is already some very slanted material in the article about that, for example, "However the Tibets managed to get a British consular officer in Nanking to issue a British visa on their Tibetan passports, and, again, a US officer in Hong Kong, thus defeating the efforts of the US State Department and the British Foreign Office to deny use of the Tibetan passports, a small victory for the supposedly unsophisticated Tibetans." But that can be edited for appropriate balance and tone later. Offsite propaganda cannot be edited like this, and the links do not provide a unique and appropriate resource beyond what Wikipedia can provide in citing it. Quigley (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

early 20th century in the introduction
This passage from the lede is quite misleading:

The main problem is the statement that Tibet was fracturing in the 20th century. In fact, Tibet was becoming more politically centralized than it had been at any time in recent memory. The connection between Tibet and Beijing was fracturing. An additional problem is the over-emphasis on British agency, at the expense of the Tibetan government, the central Chinese government, and the local Chinese warlords in so-called "inner Tibet". The sentence reads in a confusing way, too, because it seems to imply that the British cared who ruled "inner Tibet" and that they had wanted it to be ruled by a republican government, which didn't even exist before 1912.&mdash;Greg Pandatshang (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My thought is that references are appropriate to the British-Russian rivalry over central Asia, The Great Game and to the impact of western imperialism on China during the 19th and 20th century. However the civil war and the Japanese invasion are certainly the central factors which weakened China. Fred Talk 19:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's undeniable that British involvement and their invasion in 1904 had an effect on the situation. The problem is the phrase "what the British had wanted". The situation that prevailed at this time was the result of the competing wants of various players, primarily the Dalai Lama's government, the warlords, and, after the mid-1920s, Chiang Kai-shek.&mdash;Greg Pandatshang (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That passage is referenced to Page 74, Goldstein, Volume 1. It would be helpful to look at that passage, whatever it is. I'm looking... but have boxed that book up. Fred Talk 20:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That page is talking about British goals at the Simla talks. It describes why the British did not support the idea of a fully independent Tibet, but instead wanted what "came to be known as the Simla Position: symbolic subordination to China, with extensive autonomy, under the watchful eye of Great Britain". It then goes on to explain why the Tibetan government was willing to accept this compromise at the time in 1914.&mdash;Greg Pandatshang (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm looking at the page on Amazon, a search for "british" brings it up. The British had a trade monopoly and exclusive access and liked it that way. Fred Talk 20:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

To go back to the quoted passage, it is simply unsourced. Fred Talk 20:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

After 1951
Tibetan foreign relations did not cease immediately after the 17-point agreement was accepted in 1951. As Melvyn Goldstein describes in A History of Modern Tibet, Volume 2 (pg. 412), the old Tibetan government's Foreign Affairs Bureau continued to exist until 1952 or later, when it was merged into the new Tibet Foreign Affairs Department (西藏外事处). Even at that point, Tibet still had an unusual international profile, since a) most province-level entities don't have foreign affairs departments, and b) the new Foreign Affairs Department was jointly run by the Chinese government and by the old Tibetan government. I'm not sure at what point the Tibet Foreign Affairs Department ceased functioning; it may have lasted until 1959, or it may have been eliminated during the 1956-1959 period when PCTAR was becoming more powerful.&mdash;Greg Pandatshang (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There is also the matter of foreign relations conducted by the Dalai Lama and later the Tibetan Government in exile such as the appeal to the United Nations and the resolution passed there by the General Assembly in 1959. Whatever article they go into, they are certainly significant events which occurred. If not here, where? Fred Talk 19:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If the 13th Dalai Lama's government in Tibet could do foreign relations because they had "de facto" control over Tibet, the idea that #14 could conduct foreign relations on behalf of Tibet on the basis of some retroactive "de jure" claim after he relinquished control and left Tibet is... incredible. Essentially, that is a contrarian political argument that the Dalai Lama is the "real" representative of Tibet, despite not being elected &c., and not an argument with a legal basis. The 14th Dalai Lama, even more than his predecessor when he had some power, is not received as a head of state by any recognized government. The 1959 resolution just called for respecting the "fundamental human rights of the Tibetan people", which does not change the political status of Tibet. Quigley (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe at the enthronement of the 13th Dalai Lama the British, Chinese, and Mongols were in attendance in very much the way that would be expected at 'state' occasions. It is at minimum an enormous over simplification to say that the government of the Dalai Lama's was never recognized internationally. Tibetologist (talk)


 * According to Goldstein (A History of Modern Tibet, Volume 1, pg. 325), there were representatives from China, the British Empire, Nepal, Ladakh, and Bhutan. The Chinese envoy was treated with "a special honor", which enabled him to claim that he had presided over the ceremony.&mdash;Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Inner and Outer Tibet
A google search for "inner tibet" OR "outer tibet" returns 17k hits, second and third being Tibet (1912–1951) and Simla Accord (1914) but this is not a term which is transparently understandable despite its mirroring of Inner and Outer Mongolia. Fred Talk 23:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed on both counts, but I'm not sure what to substitute. The political status of both regions was complicated, meaning that they defy ready description.&mdash;Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Tibet and Nationalist China’s Frontier
 * Tibet and Nationalist China’s Frontier Fred Talk 23:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what the google searches are supposed to prove, because I've seen some variant translations, such as "nearer Tibet" and "farther Tibet". And I note that while Tibetan independence sympathizers mask Tibet's political subordination to China with exotic "untranslatable" terms such as "mchod-yon", they have no problem transposing the unready terminology of nation-states onto Qing China, for example, throwing around words like "sovereignty" and "suzerainty", and this suspect double standard is reflected on most of the relevant WP articles on Tibet. Neither approach, using analogy for explanation or refusing explanation, is impossible—Wikipedia does not surrender explanation of string theory because it defies ready description to the uninitiated—but let us not be inconsistent. Quigley (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * We are just writing about what happened. We can't use Chinese terminology in an article in the English language. We can use historical information about Tibet in the Chinese language if you can find it and it is of value. Fred Talk 13:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The use of these terms is confusing. English readers interested in Tibet are likely to think that "inner Tibet" would mean an area centered around Lhasa, if anything, and "outer Tibet" would mean areas further from Lhasa. Bertport (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my first impression, and in fact I had the terms reversed at first because of that. Fred Talk 14:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Another problem with the old wording, which has been partially remediated by the current version, was that it implied the false premise that so-called "inner Tibet" and "outer Tibet" were a creation of the early 20th century, perhaps under British influence. In fact, these distinctions had been in place throughout the Qing period: there were the eastern and northeastern Tibetan-inhabited areas which were incorporated into the system of provinces, and were in practice ruled by local Tibetan chiefs and kings under the ostensible supervision of provincial authorities (and the amban of Xining); and then there were the central and western Tibetan-inhabited areas ruled by the Dalai Lama (under the ostensible supervision of the amban of Lhasa), which was a sui generis territory outside of the provinces. After the fall of the Qing, the Dalai Lama's government declared its independence, while the eastern and northeastern Tibetan areas in some cases continued to be effectively self-governing, although in a lot of times and places they were dominated by local Chinese warlords, such as Liu Wenhui and Ma Bufang. It's possible (I don't know much about the specifics) that the Tibetans in so-called "inner Tibet" were controlled more effectively by the warlords than they had usually been by the Qing-era officials.
 * All good, but it's a sentence in the introduction that we're discussing. How about trying to re-write it to avoid all these problems? Fred Talk 14:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think we need to say much about it. In practice, this article is probably going to be almost exclusively about the foreign relations of largest Tibetan regime (i.e. 1642-1951, the realm of the Dalai Lama, so-called "political Tibet"). We only need to make a brief mention that there are are eastern Tibetan territories that didn't fall within their sphere, which is a fact that we will need to refer back to later when describing the Simla Convention. I'll try to take a stab at it.&mdash;Greg Pandatshang (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, we should not describe the "inner Tibetan" areas as "mixed". With a few exceptions (notably Kangding and the countryside near Xining), these areas were heavily Tibetan. In some cases, they were home to a mixture of Tibetans and other Tibetan-influenced ethnic groups, such as the Mongols of Qinghai.&mdash;Greg Pandatshang (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not Han Chinese in any event. Fred Talk 14:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The alleged region of "inner Tibet", AKA Qinghai province was ruled during this time by the Muslim General Ma Bufang who pledged direct alleigance to the Chinese central government, the Kuomintang of the Republic of China. Qinghai was heavily populated by muslim peoples loyal to the central government of the Republic of China, like Hui people, Salar people, etc. These areas were not exclusively Tibetan. Do not try to push POV that the entire region was Tibetan.Дунгане (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed Hale and replaced it by Engelhardt
To suggest Hale, Christopher. 2003. Himmler's Crusade: The true story of the 1938 Nazi expedition into Tibet. Transworld Publishers. London. ISBN 0-593-04952-7 as further reading is a joke, I think? Himmler never made a crusade to Tibet. This sensationalist book is not helpful as further reading and does not fulfil the standards for this section. I replaced the book by proper scientific research. 213.182.68.42 (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foreign relations of Tibet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030061528/http://www.ltwa.net/library/index.php?option=com_multicategories&view=article&id=170&catid=30%3Anews&Itemid=12 to http://www.ltwa.net/library/index.php?option=com_multicategories&view=article&id=170&catid=30%3Anews&Itemid=12

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foreign relations of Tibet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060713233328/http://www.tibet.com/Status/hughrichardson.html to http://www.tibet.com/Status/hughrichardson.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)