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] Until 2008, the British government`s position remained the same, that China had sovereignty over Tibet, but not full sovereignty. It was the only state that still defended this view. [33] David Miliband, the British Foreign Secretary, described the old position as an anachronism that originated in the geopolitics of the early 20th century. [34] Britain revised this view on 29 October 2008 by recognising Chinese sovereignty over Tibet by publishing a statement on its website. [d] The economist stated that the british Foreign Office website does not use the word sovereignty, but that officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have stated: “This means that Tibet is part of China for Great Britain. Shut up. [33] There were other observations in the timetable attached to the convention. For example, it must be understood that “Tibet is part of Chinese territory” and after the Tibetans chose a Dalai Lama, that the Chinese government was informed and that the Chinese commissioner of Lhasa “would formally communicate his holiness with the titles awarded by the Chinese government, in accordance with his dignity”; that the Tibetan government has appointed all officers of “Outer Tibet” and that “Outer Tibet” should not be represented in the Chinese parliament or at such an assembly. [1] [17] Simla was initially rejected by the Indian government as incompatible with the 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention. The official protocol of the treaty, C.U.
Aitchison A Collection of Treatys, was published with a note stating that no binding agreement had been reached in Simla. [21] As the condition set out in the agreement (agreement with China) was not met, the Tibetan government did not accept the McMahon line. [22] The Simla Convention provided that Tibet would be divided into “Outer Tibet” and “Inner Tibet”. External Tibet, which corresponded roughly to Tsang and West Kham, would remain “under Chinese sovereignty in the hands of the Tibetan government of Lhasa,” but China would not interfere in its administration. “Inner Tibet,” roughly synonymous with amdo and Kham East, would fall under the jurisdiction of the Chinese government. The agreement, along with its annexes, also defines the border between Tibet and China itself and that between Tibet and British India (the latter, known as the McMahon Line). [1] [3] [a] Shimla Agreement: July 2, 1972Shimla: What is it? The Shimla Agreement was signed on 2 July 1972 by Indira Gandhi, then Indian Prime Minister, and by Pakistani President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, after the 1971 India-Pakistan War that liberated East Pakistan and led to the creation of Bangladesh.