Wei Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A1202-W826

魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号：A1202-W826

Release Date: March 30, 2019

发布日：2019年3月30日

Topic: The 60th Anniversary of the Tibetans' Struggle Against Violence (Part 2) -- Wei Jingsheng

标题：西藏人民抗暴斗争六十周年（之二） -- 魏京生

Original Language Version: Chinese (Chinese version at the end)

此号以中文为准（英文在前，中文在后）

Note: Please use "Simplified Chinese (GB2312)" encoding to view the Chinese parts of this release. If this mail does not display properly in your email program, please send your request for special delivery to us or visit:

http://www.weijingsheng.org/report/report2019/report2019-03/WeiJS190330onTibet60uprising2A1202-W826.htm which contains identical information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The 60th Anniversary of the Tibetans' Struggle Against Violence (Part 2)

-- Wei Jingsheng

A couple of days ago, I released a commentary about the Tibetans' struggle against violence. The result was that unexpectedly I received a response following my commentary. Radio Free Asia generally does not have follow-up posting. This post was another obvious comment by a Chinese agent disguised as an anti-communist. This shows that a majority of people does not know some issues clearly, thus need more detailed explanation.

The most important issue in that post was the issue of sovereignty related to Tibet. These intellectuals working for the Communist regime have repeated their fallacy for decades that Tibet has belonged to China since the Yuan Dynasty. Well, even much later, Canada and Australia still belong to the United Kingdom. Now do they have sovereignty? That was a ridiculous argument.

Various documents of the Qing Dynasty have well documented the status and mission of its Ministers to Tibet as to help the Dalai Lama deal with diplomatic and defense affairs. They also state that the army of the Qing Dynasty stationed in Tibet was the guardians of the Minister to Tibet, with any departure from the military camp requiring the approval of the Tibetan's Kashag government. Is not this the role of an ambassador? However, in accordance with the ancient Chinese custom, the ambassadors were temporary, so they were titled with a name different from ambassador or envoy.

The so-called Golden Urn was to ask an authoritative neighbor and friend to witness the settlement of internal disputes. This is similar to the modern notary public; how could it be related to the issue of sovereignty? This is even more nonsense. The imperial minister who was sent and was representing the emperor (of the Qing Dynasty) was only making sure that there was no cheating on the process of selecting the stake from the Golden Urn, and even the lama who was shaking the stakes was chosen by the Tibetans. This was a standard witness work, with no way to claim a property or sovereignty from the neighbor.

The main evidence to say that the relationship between Tibet and the Qing Dynasty was not suzerainty is the issue of dedicating the tributes and claims as the ministers to the emperor. There were records of the Qing Dynasty that only saw tribute to Tibet from the Qing Dynasty, instead of the other way. This is clearly different from the tributary system from Mongolia, North Korea and Vietnam.

An old news disclosed by the Communist scholars is very interesting. When the British invaded, the Dalai Lama of Tibet fled to Qamdo and went to Beijing to ask the Empress Dowager Cixi for help. Cixi forced him to kneel, causing dissatisfaction with the Dalai Lama, and her ministers thought that did not fit the etiquette. This shows that the formality of etiquette was equal status between the two sides, and was in the state of a united empire instead of a suzerainty.

By the way, the reasons that the British army did not attack Qamdo at that time was not because it was difficult to approach, but was because at that time the Qamdo area was legally belonging to the Qing Dynasty, even though it was governed by the Dalai Lama's Kashag government; it was different from the system of the Xikang province. The British strategy was not to let the Qing Dynasty intervene in Tibet affairs. They thought that the relationship between Tibet and the Qing Dynasty had turned cold and the status of Tibet was not determined. Qamdo was assigned to Tibet after the establishment of the Tibet Autonomous Region by the Chinese Communist regime.

Tibet was in a structure of an empire. That is a fact that most people don't know. All the small countries around Tibet were the suzerainties of Tibet in the past, including the current Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and Kashmir that were illegally occupied by the British Raj, and the Himachal Pradesh where the Tibetan Government-in-exile located now. These were all recognized as independent in the agreements signed with the Communist regime after the founding of the People's Republic of China. Nepal has thus profited and disarmed 100,000 Tibetans and acquired a large territory in the southern foothills of the Himalayas.

The misbehavior of Empress Cixi led to the rapid cooling down and even hatred of the relationship between Tibet and the Qing Dynasty. Under the struggle of the Tibetan people against violence, the British army could not stay in Tibet and withdrew back to India. The Tibetan ministers attended the Simla meeting hosted by the British, which secretly reached an independent agreement to separate from the Qing Dynasty.

Although this Simla Accord was not recognized by the Kashag government, its legal status was clearly higher than the Seventeen Point Agreements reached by the prisoners. It can be seen that Empress Cixi and Deng Xiaoping were the chief culprits of the undefined legal status of Tibet and the retrogression of the relations.

The list disclosed by the Communist regime itself shows that the so-called delegation of Ngapoi Nwang Jinmei is actually composed of prisoners. Except for a lama with the Tibetan army, they were all captured Tibetan military officers. At the Battle of Qamdo, Ngapoi Awang Jinmei changed his clothes and mixed himself with the prisoners. He was captured when he was recognized by Phuntsok Wangyal Goranangpa, who was the organizer the guiders army, as the deputy political commissar of the 18th Chinese Army and the chairman of the Tibetan Communist Party, a branch of the Soviet Communist Party at that time.

Can such kind of prisoners of war have equal negotiating status? At the most, it only has the status of negotiation for surrendering. After all, the Tibetan Kashag government has never admitted and signed this Seventeen Point agreement. Its legal status is indeed even less than the Simla accord, which was also an agreement intended to be signed but was never approved by the Kashag government.

Original link of this commentary:

https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/pinglun/weijingsheng/wjs-03262019135103.html

To hear Mr. Wei Jingsheng's related commentary, please visit:

http://www.weijingsheng.org/RFA/RFA2019/WeiJS190323onTibet60uprising2.mp3

(Written on March 15, 2019 and recorded on March 23, 2019. Broadcasted by Radio Free Asia.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is a message from WeiJingSheng.org

The Wei Jingsheng Foundation and the Overseas Chinese Democracy Coalition are dedicated to the promotion of human rights and democratization in China. We appreciate your assistance and help in any means. We pledge solidarity to all who struggle for human rights and democratic governance on this planet.

You are welcome to use or distribute this release. However, please credit with this foundation and its website at: www.weijingsheng.org

Although we are unable to afford to pay royalty fees at this time, we are seeking your contribution as well. You may send your articles, comments and opinions to: HCP@weijingsheng.org. Please remember, only in text files, not in attachments.

For website issues and suggestions, you may contact our professional staff and web master at: webmaster@Weijingsheng.org

To find out more about us, please also visit our websites at:

www.WeiJingSheng.org and www.ChinaLaborUnion.org

for news and information for Overseas Chinese Democracy Coalition and human rights and democracy movement as whole, especially our Chinese Labor Union Base.

You may contact Ciping Huang at: HCP@Weijingsheng.org or

Wei Jingsheng Foundation office at: 1-202-270-6980

Wei Jingsheng Foundation's postal address is:

Wei Jingsheng Foundation, P. O. Box 15449, Washington, DC 20003, USA

You are receiving this message because you had previous shown your interest in learning more about Mr. Wei Jingsheng and the Chinese Democratic Movement. To be removed from the list, simply reply this message and use "unsubscribe" as the Subject. Please allow us a few days to process your request.

*****************************************************************

中文版

Wei Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A1202-W826

魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号：A1202-W826

Release Date: March 30, 2019

发布日：2019年3月30日

Topic: The 60th Anniversary of the Tibetans' Struggle Against Violence (Part 2) -- Wei Jingsheng

标题：西藏人民抗暴斗争六十周年（之二） -- 魏京生

Original Language Version: Chinese (Chinese version at the end)

此号以中文为准（英文在前，中文在后）

如有中文乱码问题，请与我们联系或访问：

http://www.weijingsheng.org/report/report2019/report2019-03/WeiJS190330onTibet60uprising2A1202-W826.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------

西藏抗暴斗争六十周年（之二）

-- 魏京生

前两天我发了一篇有关西藏人民抗暴的文章，结果出乎意料之外地收到了一则跟帖。自由亚洲电台一般没有跟帖，这又是一则明显的五毛伪装成反共人士的跟帖。这说明一些问题对大多数人并不那么清楚，需要更细致的说明。

跟帖中最重要的问题是主权问题。中共的御用文人几十年来都重复说什么元朝西藏就归属中国的谬论。比那更晚的年代，加拿大和澳大利亚还归属英国呢，现在他们就没有主权了吗？荒谬之极。

清朝的各种文件都记载得很清楚，驻藏大臣的地位和任务，就是襄助达赖喇嘛处理外交和国防事务。并注明驻藏的军队是驻藏大臣的卫队，其离开军营需得到噶厦政府的批准。这不就是大使吗？只不过按照中国古代的习惯，大使都是临时的，所以起了一个不同于使节的名称而已。

所谓金瓶掣签，就是请一个权威的邻居和朋友，来见证解决内部纠纷。这类似于现代的公证人，和主权有什么关系呢？这更加胡扯了。代表皇帝的钦差大臣只是在一边观看金瓶掣签的过程是否有作弊，甚至摇签的喇嘛都是西藏方面的人选。这是标准的证人工作，和你们家的财产主权有个毛的关系呀。

说清藏关系并非藩属关系，主要证据就是纳贡称臣。有清一代的记载只见清朝给西藏进贡，没见有西藏给清朝进贡。这明显区别于外蒙古、朝鲜和越南的称臣纳贡体制。

中共御用学者们披露的一则旧闻很有意思。英国侵略时，西藏达赖喇嘛逃往昌都后进京找慈禧太后求援，慈禧强迫他下跪，引起达赖喇嘛不满，群臣皆认为不合礼数。这就说明正规的礼数是双方地位平等，是不同于藩属的联合帝国地位。

顺便说说，当年英军没有进攻昌都，不是因为山高路远，而是当时昌都地区在法律上属于清朝，实际上由达赖喇嘛的噶厦政府治理，实行不同于西康省的制度。英国的策略是不想让清朝介入西藏事务，他们认为清藏关系转冷，西藏地位未定。昌都是在中共成立西藏自治区后，才划归西藏的。

西藏是个帝国的结构，这是大多数人都不知道的事实。西藏周边的所有小国当年都曾是西藏的藩属国，包括现在的尼泊尔、锡金、不丹和被英印当局非法占领的克什米尔，和现在流亡政府所在的喜玛偕尔邦。这些都是在中共建国后，和这些国家签订的协议中被承认独立的。尼泊尔因此获利并缴械了十万藏族武装，还获得了喜马拉雅山南麓的大片领土。

慈禧的不合礼数的作为，导致了清藏关系的迅速冷淡，甚至仇视。在藏族人民的全民抗暴斗争下，英军在西藏无法立足，撤回印度。西藏派大臣参加英国主持的西姆拉会议，秘密达成脱离清朝的独立协议。

这个协议虽然没得到噶厦政府的承认，但其法律地位显然高于由俘虏达成的十七条协议。可见慈禧和邓小平二人一前一后，是导致西藏法律地位不定，关系倒退的罪魁祸首。

中共自己披露的名单显示，阿沛的所谓代表团实际上是由俘虏组成。除了一名随军喇嘛外，全都是被俘军官。昌都战役时，阿沛·阿旺晋美改换服装，混在俘虏群中。他是被当时组织向导队伍的苏共分支，西藏共产党主席，兼十八军副政委的平措汪阶认出来而被俘虏的。

这样的战俘团，能有平等的谈判地位吗？最多只有谈判投降的地位吧。何况至今为止，噶厦政府从未承认和签署这个协议。其法律地位确实不如西姆拉协议，都是未经噶厦政府批准的协议。

本篇评论在自由亚洲电台的原始链接：

https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/pinglun/weijingsheng/wjs-03262019135103.html