A: From Chinese and western history books it can be seen that since the 18th century,
when Britain first set foot in Tibet, each time the Tibet issue was raised between
Britan and the Qing imperial court, it was on the basis of Tibet being a part
of Chinese territory. Whenever Britain and the Qing imperial court, it was on
the basis of Tibet being a part of Chinese territory. Whenever Britain sent its
emissaries to visit Tibet, they had to obtain visas from the Qing court. Foreigners
were forbidden to enter Tibet without permission from the Chinese emperor. For
instance, in 1774 and 1783 Warren Hastings, then British viceroy of India, sent
George Bogle and Samuel Turner, secretaries of the East India Company, to Tibet,
intending to building trade ties with the local government of Tibet without going
through the medium of Chinese central government. George Bogle attempted to establish
links with the areas under the jurisdiction of the Panchen Lama. The Panchen Lama's
response was, "The Chinese emperor controls and supervises Tibet through
the prince regent and commissioner whom he has appointed and stationed in Tibet.
If the prince regent administers competently, and the emperor in Beijing is satisfied
with him, then all is well. Otherwise, the emperor will behead him." He also
said, "I am merely a lama who chants sutras, so I cannot conclude any convention
with foreign countries."
In the late 19th century, in its continued effort
to carve China up, Britain launched two wars to invade Tibet, and fabricated the
theory of China's suzerainty over Tibet in order to create a foundation for the
concept of "Tibet independence." however, historical facts cannot be
denied. The British-Indian officials' understanding of Tibet's status best explains
the "suzerainty" theory of the British government. George Bogle, the
first Briton to enter Tibet and establish relations between the British-Indian
government and Tibet, admitted, "Tibet is under the jurisdiction of the Chinese
emperor." (See "Britain, Russia and China's Tibet" chiefly edited
by Zhou Weizhou, page 35, published by China Tibetology Publishing House, 2000).
In a letter dated January 8, 1903 from the British cabinet to Lord Curzon, British
viceroy of India, Britain clearly affirmed that "Tibet is a province of China"
and 'a component part of Chinese Empire," and that Curzon's "buffer
state' scheme "violates the territorial integrity of the Chinese Empire,"
thereby the cabinet should not approve it. In addition, all conventions between
the British-Indian government and Tibet regarding Tibet's foreign affairs, national
defense, commerce, finance, taxation and public security indicate that Britain
recognized China's legitimate rights over Tibet regarding both its foreign affairs
and civil administration. Of all the conventions signed between China and Britain
regarding Tibet, not a single article denies China's right of guidance, administration
and supervision over Tibet's civil administration. On the contrary, all the convention
rights enjoyed by Britain in Tibet were obtained through the central government
of China.
On June 17, 1954, with respecting China's sovereignty and territorial
integrity as prerequisite, Britain and the People's Republic of China established
diplomatic relations on a charge d'affaires-level, and on March 13, 1972, these
diplomatic relations were advanced to ambassador-level. The establishment of diplomatic
relations between Ritain and the People's Republic of china indicates that Britain
respected China's sovereignty and territorial integrity. How, then, can Britain
deny it has openly acknowledged Tibet as a part of Chinese territory? |
