Stay away from Tibet, China tells international community

[Ray]

China didn't sign any treaty with India regarding Tibet's "autnomous". So, China doesn't have any obligation to consult india about how to define "autnomous" .

On the other hand, China did sign the treaty with Dalai Lama in which Chinese promised "autonomous" status to tibet with detail. HOWEVER, when Dalai started his riot and flee to india, this treaty was actually abolished by himself. So, Chinese have the opportunity to re-define the term of "autnomous" by their own.

Since there was a close India Tibet relationship before China invaded Tibet, it was a natural corollary that India would condemn the naked aggression.

However, it was the era of Nehru, who was enamoured by the fact that he was an international figure of peace, and so he accepted the Chinese contention that Tibet was an autonomous region of China.

I am not too sure what autonomous means in Chinese, but any other international language it means

1. (of a country or region) Having self-government.
2. Acting independently or having the freedom to do so:
3. self-governing - independent


Tibet, in its present state does not conform to any.

 

[t_co]

Since there was a close India Tibet relationship before China invaded Tibet, it was a natural corollary that India would condemn the naked aggression.

However, it was the era of Nehru, who was enamoured by the fact that he was an international figure of peace, and so he accepted the Chinese contention that Tibet was an autonomous region of China.

I am not too sure what autonomous means in Chinese, but any other international language it means

1. (of a country or region) Having self-government.
2. Acting independently or having the freedom to do so:
3. self-governing - independent


Tibet, in its present state does not conform to any.

Was there a signed document between India, Tibet, and China? If not, then India has no right to complain. Verbal agreements mean nothing in international relations

 

[Ray]

Was there a signed document between India, Tibet, and China? If not, then India has no right to complain. Verbal agreements mean nothing in international relations

India is not complaining.

In fact, the Indian govt has encouraged and is encouraging China.

It did nothing when China invaded Tibet, when it could have done so, given that China would then have to fight on two fronts - Korea and Tibet and US was goading India to act.

But Nehru was always a good friend of China.

You are right there is no value of verbal agreement in international politics.

In fact, there is no trust!

Very cut and dried.

 

[no smoking]

Since there was a close India Tibet relationship before China invaded Tibet, it was a natural corollary that India would condemn the naked aggression.

However, it was the era of Nehru, who was enamoured by the fact that he was an international figure of peace, and so he accepted the Chinese contention that Tibet was an autonomous region of China.

He accepted? It seems that no one in Chinese side coming to ask his opinion about Chinese movement in Tibet.
And what can he can do if he didn't accept? Sending a troop climbing over mountains to fight CCP?

I am not too sure what autonomous means in Chinese, but any other international language it means

1. (of a country or region) Having self-government.
2. Acting independently or having the freedom to do so:
3. self-governing - independent


Tibet, in its present state does not conform to any.

Is this international language included in any international treaty or just invented by you?

Could you please provide any international treaty defining the meaning of "autonomous" as you said. And please prove that China signed that treaty before setting up Tibet autonomous region.