Simla Agreement Tibet

In February and March 1914, the Indian government opened bilateral negotiations with the Tibetans in Deli (conference participants who had withdrawn from Simla winter) in order to obtain Tibet`s agreement on the alignment proposal. The British government sees its new positions as an update of its position, while others have seen it as a major change in the British position. [e] Tibetan Robert Barnett believes that the decision has a broader impact. India`s claim to part of its northeastern territories, for example, is largely based on the same agreements – notes exchanged during the 1914 Simla Convention, which established the border between India and Tibet – that the British seem to have simply rejected. [28] It has been speculated that Britain has changed in exchange for an increased contribution from China to the International Monetary Fund. [28] [35] [36] The border between Tibet and India was negotiated privately in Simla between the representatives of Great Britain and Tibet, in the absence of the Chinese representative. At the Simla conference, a map of the Tibet-India border was made available as an appendix to the proposed agreement. [16] [15] [a] [c] [c] In his letter [23 January 1959], Zhou made the following points to Nehru for the first time. First, that the Sino-Indian border had never been formally demarcated and that no agreement or agreement had been reached between the Chinese central government and the Indian government. Second, the McMahon Line was a product of the British policy of aggression against the Tibetan region of China. Third, Zhou acknowledged that the Tibetan local authorities had signed the convention, but were dissatisfied with the “unilateral" line.

Nevertheless, Zhou assured that “the Chinese government believes it is necessary to adopt a realistic attitude towards the McMahon line." The Anglo-Russian Convention was abandoned in 1921 by Russia and Great Britain, but the McMahon Line was forgotten until 1935, when interest was revived by official Olaf Caroe. [24] [Unreliable source?] The India Survey published in 1937 a map showing the McMahon Line as the official border. [24] [Unreliable source?] In 1938, the British published the Simla Convention in the Treaties of Aitchison. [21] [25] A previously published volume was recalled from libraries and replaced with a volume containing the Simla Convention, accompanied by a note from the publisher, which indicates that Tibet and Great Britain, but not China, accepted the agreement as binding. [26] The replacement band has a false publication date of 1929. [21] Negotiations failed when China and Tibet failed to agree on the Sino-Tibetan border. [18] Chinese attorney Ivan Chen initiated the contract until it was confirmed by his government. He was then ordered by the Chinese government to reject his agreement. [10] On July 3, 1914, British and Tibetan plenipotentiaries signed the convention without the Chinese signature. They also signed an additional bilateral declaration stating that the agreement binds them and that China does not have any privileges under the agreement until it has signed it. [17] [19] [8] At the same time, the British and Lochen Shatra signed a new set of trade provisions to replace those of 1908. [20] Chinese affiliation or recognition was not necessary to be valid for the Anglo-Tibetan Convention of 3 July 1914 and the border agreement of 25 March 1914.

His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the British Lords overseas, Emperor of India, His Excellency the President of the Republic of China, and His Holiness the Dalai Lama of Tibet, in the sincere desire to settle by mutual agreement various issues on the interests of their various states on the continent of Asia, and to continue to regulate the relations of their various governments , have decided to reach an agreement on this subject and have appointed their respective representatives to this end, i.e. that not only were the borders of India and Tibet discussed at the conference, but at no time, neither at the conference nor, later, the Chinese objections; for the Chinese representative in Simla was Ivan Chen of the McMahon line

This entry was posted in 未分類. Bookmark the permalink.