一个老外把藏独驳的哑口无言。http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopi...c_view=&start=0一个很精彩的例子 to respond to "China has no right to govern in Tibet under the current and historic terms of international law":On what legal authority are you basing this argument on? As far as I am aware, every single nation on earth formally recognises Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. And do you want to know something else - this has always been the case, even long before Beijing decided to invade and occupy Tibet in 1951. In 1942, the U.S. State Department for example, formally notified the Chinese government that it had at no time raised any doubt about the Chinese sovereignty claim over Tibet. The attitude of the United States remains unchanged. A report prepared for Congress in 1994 even expressed a very explicit anti-Dharmasala position: "Historically, the United States has acknowledged Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. Since at least 1966, U.S. policy has explicitly recognized the Tibetan Autonomous Region...as part of the People's Republic of China. This long-standing policy is consistent with the view of the entire international community, including all China's neighbours: no country recognizes Tibet as a sovereign state. Because we do not recognize Tibet as an independent state, the United States does not conduct diplomatic relations with the self-styled 'Tibetan government-in-exile.'" Indeed, Tibetans have always required Chinese passports to enter the U.S. - always, both before and since the occupation of 1951. Allow me to be lazy (I don't have very much time on my hands at present) by quoting at length a passage from Wikipedia: "Not a single sovereign state, including India, has extended recognition to the Tibetan Government-in-exile in the more than two decades of its existence. This lack of legal recognition of independence has forced even some strong supporters of the refugees to admit that "even today international legal experts sympathetic to the Dalai Lama's cause find it difficult to argue that Tibet ever technically established its independence of the Chinese Empire, imperial, or republican." So the position held by the United States is exactly the same as the position held by literally every other country on earth. So I ask you again David - on what legal arguments do you base your assertion that China has no rights under international law to exercise sovereignty over Tibet? And please don't waste my time by citing the findings of the self-proclaimed "International Commission of Jurists" which is essentially a non-government human rights organisation representing the political agenda of the Tibet lobby. Their legal assertions hold little weight among the world's experts in international law. The fact that every nation on earth recognises China's sovereignty over Tibet in itself legitimises China's claim of sovereignty. Surely nobody can really argue against that? The only country that, historically, has ever challenged China's soveriegn claims to Tibet was Britain, and that was back in late 1903 when Britain invaded Tibet in an attempt to force it into accepting trade relations. The British finally managed to seize Lhasa in August 1904 and forced the Tibetans to sign a Convention to open up trade. They refused to remove their troops from Tibet until an indemnity was paid. The Chinese protested the invasion and occupation of Tibet, and the British, eager to avoid a wider conflict, then agreed to negotiate the situation with the Qing Court. The resultant 1906 Anglo-Chinese Convention, as Professor Melvyn Goldstein has pointed out, "reaffirmed the Chinese overlord position in Tibet and restricted the British role primarily to commercial affairs." Further more, "the invasion of Tibet and the Lhasa Convention of 1904 dramatically altered Chinese policy toward Tibet. Until then, the Qing Dynasty had evinced no interest in directly administering Tibet. The British thrusts now suggested to Beijing that unless it took prompt action its position as overlord in Tibet might be lost and Tibet could fall under the British sphere of influence. The Qing Dynasty, although enfeebled and on the brink of collapse, responded with surprising vigor. Beijing got the British troops to leave Tibetan soil quickly by itself paying the 2.5 million rupee indemnity to Britain, and began to take a more active role in day-to-day affairs in Tibet. Britain's casual invasion of Tibet, therefore, stimulated China to protect what it felt were its national interests in Tibet by beginning a program to integrate Tibet culturally, economically, and politically more closely with the rest of China." (see Goldstein, Tibet, China and the United States: Reflections on the Tibet Question, 1995).
