Talk:Simla Convention/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

April 2009

I have partially reverted the edits by user:Kauffner for a number of reasons.

• There is no official name for a treaty, there are just descriptions of the treaty, typically long and short ones.
• Changing citations from one format style to another (in this case from a simple line into a citation template) is depreciated, unless it is to bring them all into conformity which in this case it is not as most are not in a citation template.
• This fact "After the three negotiators initialed the treaty, Beijing rejected the outcome. " is wrong, Ivan Chen, withdrew on 3 July 1914 BEFORE the treaty was initialled.
• "Modeled on an 1913 Sino-Russian accord concerning Mongolia, Simla provided that 'Outer Tibet' would 'remain in the hands of the Tibetan Government at Lhasa.'" No citation that it was modeled on the other accord or a citation for the quote.
• No reason for removing the cited fact that there were two maps.

I have no objections to the changes to the paragraphs immediately before and in the Aftermath section. --PBS (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The official name of the treaty is the one that appears in the treaty record. The treaty was initialed by all three parties on 27 April 1914,[1] apparently the diplomatic equivalent of a handshake. The quote is from the treaty, which I think is obvious from the context. If you look what's been promoted to FA in last few years, the templetes are pretty much standard and footnotes are taken out of the lede, so that is the direction we should be going. A lede gets fleshed out in the main body of the text, not in "Notes". The way lede is now its all about China; It needs to include a summary of the content of the treaty. Kauffner (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no such "official" thing. I feel very strange why some people again and again call illegal things "official". Maybe to India it is "official", but to the rest of world, this is not a legal treaty. Kauffner, I appreciate your effort to revise things the way you want. But at the end you will find youfself get something like "India's official illegal treaty".

The secret nature of this convention has been well documented. Even Sir. McMahon lamented that he regreted he wasn't successful in inducing the Chinese to sign the treaty. The initial by Chinese in March was renounced immediately after realized the secret intention of the other two parties, and the Chinese central government repudiated it.

But, above that, it WAS illegal Tibet signed such treaty with other parties, without its central government's approval. After all, this is not even a legal British treaty, nor British colonial treaty, you can't find it from British's treaty website. The only place you mentioned before was Indian's "Aitchison's A Collection Of Treaties", I don't know how valid this collection is, but I found many of them have been abandoned long time ago. Looks like that the so-called Collection is a garbage can... Xingdong (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Xingdong Kauffner is not using "official" in that sense (something can have an official name and still be illegal). --PBS (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner I used to make that mistake, but I have recently been doing a lot of work on treaties of the Napoleonic era and the long names vary from official source to official source, for example the name read into the Parliamentary record and the Foreign Office. The long name is just an index term written so that it is descriptive and unique (typically the parties, place and date and AFAICT does not actually appear at the top of a treaty -- treaties are between sovereigns (or the equivalent in a constitutional state) not countries and is something that the preamble describes in considerable detail along with the name of the plenipotentiaries--, but in other treaties the name is often the short name usually place and date. I have just finished one which I can demonstrate this. See the first paragraph of the s:Treaty of Vienna (Seventh Coalition) which refers to the Treaty of Chaumont which in the Foreign office record is "TREATY of Union, Concert, and Subsidy, between Britannic Majesty and His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty the Emperor of Austria.—Signed at Chaumont, the 1st of March, 1814"[2] so which is the official name, the name by which it is read into the Parliamentary record or the name used in other treaties?

I can not find the line in the source you have provided that says the Chinese plenipotentiary initialled the treaty. Please place the exact words here so I can find them with a text search. I have my own opinion on FAs and what people do in FAs and Wikipeida policy are not necessarily the same thing. --PBS (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

In this case, there is only one official source, namely C.U. Aitchison's A Collection Of Treaties, and thus only one official treaty title. Chen's initialing is recorded here: "The above treaty and the articles thereof, having been to the full knowledge of Ivan Chen, the Chinese plenipotentiary had initialed but did not ratify the same."(Simla Accord) Kauffner (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The official source will be the original treaty and the copies made at the time. The name C.U. Aitchison uses is an index name for his volumes, it is not an official name (as I doubt it appears on the treaty itself, but if it does then I will concede the point). BTW his works seem to cover various volumes (14 in the 5th edition) which volume and edition is this treaty in? --PBS (talk)

Ha you have caught me out! I used reliable sources to source s:Simla Accord (1914), but to help me create the article, I used an unreliable source History of Simla Convention to cut and past the text into my sandbox, and then checked the text from that source against the reliable sources I had found. It seems that I missed this tail end paragraph (which existed in the unreliable source but not the reliable ones as available using Google book search).

The unreliable source included "The above treaty and the articles thereof, having been to the full knowledge of Ivan Chen, the Chinese plenipotentiary had initialed but did not ratify the same. The plenipotentiaries of India and Tibet on equal status, signed and sealed the agreement." while the McKay source contains the following "On the withdrawal of the Chinese, a Declaration was signed by the plenipotentiaries of Britain and Tibet declaring that the Convention was to be binding on the Governments of Britain and Tibet and agreeing that so long as the Chinese Government withheld it signature it would be debarred from the enjoyment of privileges accruing thereunder." which seems to be a reference to the next section in the wikisource article "Anglo-Tibetan Declaration" for which I cited a source.

I have now changed the s:Simla Accord (1914) to eliminate my error. --PBS (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Aitchison's is the treaty record, i.e. the ratified version of treaty. It is therefore more official than the signed version. The Simla Accord appears in C.U. Aitchison, A Collection of Treaties, Vol XIV, Calcutta 1929, pp. 21 & 38. You won't find it on the Web; You'd have to go to a research library. The version in Wikisource is missing Aitchison's note, which says: Note: Whereas the Simla Convention itself after being initialled by the Chinese Plenipotentiary was not signed or ratified by the Chinese Government, it was accepted as binding by the two other parties as between themselves.[3] (From this source, it's not clear where the note comes from, but I recall the same note as being in the original.) Kauffner (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ratification is not done that way. Ratification is a separate instrument, where by the sovereign (or equivalent), acknowledges that they accept the treaty and send the instrument to the other party or to some agreed intermediary who holds the instruments in a depot.[4]

Thanks for the link above which includes the link Convention between Great Britain, China and Tibet, Simla, 1914, I'll use it to update the Wikisource version. The trouble is that the note does not reflect what is shown in the document, on which the note is placed, because the copied document on which the not is placed includes the initials of two of the parties, (just above the note) but not the Chinese initials (or seal).

My reason for raising this is because none of the versions readable the net include a representation of the Chinese initials (or seal) on the document.

The comment on the last page of the document linked above is in my opinion is a description of Anglo-Tibetan Declaration. That declaration says "as initialled to be binding on the Governments of Great Britain and Tibet" unfortunately it does not state initialled by whom. --PBS (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have done a word for word comparison between the version on the website of the Tibetan Parliamentary and Policy Research Centre (TPPRC) and the version on Wikisource which is based on McKay and Goldstein (see s:Simla Accord (1914)#References. The TPPRC has a number of transcription errors. Most of them are not significant (eg in section 10 the word "between" is missing: difference of meaning between them the English text shall be authoritative.), but there are two significant differences in sections 5 and 6. In section 5 the words in bold are missing "The Governments of China and Tibet engage that they will not enter into any negotiations ... Convention of September 7, 1904, between Great Britain and Tibet and the Convention of April 27, 1906, between Great Britain and China." and in section 6 the last phrase on the first paragraph is significantly different "between Great Britain and Tibet the term 'Foreign Power' does not include China. "(McKay) and "between Great Britain and Tibet and the Convention of April 27, 1906, between Great Britain and China." (TPPRC). The Goldstein version is the same as the McKay version. The three footnotes at the bottom of the TPPRC seem to have been transcribed from somewhere but there are only two "*" in the text and three notes. It is not clear where the first note that you highlight comes from as the other two "*" would appear to match the other two "*" in the text. Without the original where this note comes from I am Leary of including it in the Wikipdia source as I do not know which sentence footnote with the comment and as there are so many errors in the transcription I don't think we can use the TPPRC version as a reliable source. --PBS (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

<-- outdent. OK I have found a source that explains the note. "The China quarterly" By University of London. Contemporary China Institute, Congress for Cultural Freedom, JSTOR (Organization), Published by Contemporary China Institute of the School of Oriental and African Studies, London University, 1971, Item notes: nos. 45-48, p. 531

(c) The secretary of State considers that it would be desirable not to publish the text of the Declaration of 3 July 1914 by the Plenipotentiaries of Great Britain and Tibet accepting the Simla Convention as binding on their two Governments, but to deal with it merely by means of a note to be inserted in Aitchison in the sense suggested at the end of para. 4 of the letter to the Foreign Office of 13 June 1936. [The wording in that letter runs thus: whereas the Simla Convention itself after being initialled by the Chinese Plenipotentiary was not signed or ratified by the Chinese Government, it was accepted as binding between the two other parties as between themselves]

I'll add a paraphrase of the above to the Wikisource article. --PBS (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

British's policy change has no relation with IMF

Last sentence of "British's policy change" says: "It is speculated that Britain's shift was made in exchange for China making greater contributions to the International Monetary Fund.[23]". After checking the source The New York Times [[5]], I found the statement is actually this:

"Last month, for example, Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, asked China to give money to the International Monetary Fund, in return for which Beijing would expect an increase in its voting share"

So I removed the old sentence accordingly, as it has no relation with this entry. Xingdong (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

But the next sentence says "Now there is speculation that a trade-off for this arrangement involved a major shift in the British position on Tibet. ..." The name "Did Britain Just Sell Tibet? " of the article and makes it clear that the author is making the connection that the Wikipdia sentence states. It certainly makes sense because it explains the timing of the shift in position on this in the real world and not the explanation given in the Chinese press that is quoted in the article "Of course these European countries are at this time not collectively changing their tune because their conscience has gotten the better of them,". States don't have a conscience they don't don't even have friends (as the shafting of India on this makes clear), states have interests! So I think it is worth putting the sentence back. --PBS (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

IMO,this whole section has very little relationship to Simla. That the current British government considers Tibet to be a part of China cannot change Tibet's status, whatever it was, back in 1914. Kauffner (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It is relevant because if the British saw the treaty as binding they would not make a unilateral move like that but agree with China to a new treaty. Britain like any other responsible state does not break its treaty obligations, (without a cynical legal get out). Which is why the details of this messy business is still so relevant. --PBS (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit clash]

I am not the only one who reads it that way, see for example this blog "Have Brown and Miliband sold out Tibet for Chinese cash?" by James Forsyth the web editor of the Spectator on 25 November 2008.

Also an editorial titled "The neglect of Tibet" in the Daily Telegraph (no friend of Labour) on March 2009 "The global recession has made Western powers even more anxious to placate the economic powerhouse of China. The plight of downtrodden Tibetans no longer seems so urgent.—Britain led the way last autumn when Gordon Brown urged China to contribute more to the IMF. That coincided, fortuitously no doubt, with a Commons announcement by David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, that "like every other EU member state, and the United States, we regard Tibet as part of the People's Republic of China"."

So I think it is worth putting the sentence back. With these additional sources if the statement is still not clear to you. --PBS (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

PBS, I think you're right on this. I glanced only the first para and didn't see the relation between. I have no objection if you change it back. Xingdong (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Aitchison treaties were inherited by India and Pakistan when they became independent, so they are no longer binding on Britain. India recognized Tibet as a part of China in 1953. Britain's earlier position that China was suzerain was an illogical split-the-difference view. The word is from Simla. But by the logic of Simla, China would become suzerain only if it ratified. Kauffner (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Among the Aitchison treaties many are part of British colonial legacy. Some of them were forced by British, and some of them were done by tricks. This Simla Accord is one of the latter. Xingdong (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Boundary was secretly negotiated

Revision as of 00:55, 15 April 2009 "The boundary was secretly negotiated in New Delhi between representatives from British and Tibet. It was not shown to Chinese during the convention (Maxwell)." But the previous source says "The two maps (27 April 1914 and 3 July 1914) illustrating the boundaries bear the full signature of the Tibetan Plenipotentiary; the first bears the full signature of the Chinese Plenipotentiary also;" So both statements can not be correct unless the two maps have different lines which AFAICT is not something the first source states and does not imply. --PBS (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Maxwell writes: "A covert byproduct of the Simla Conference was the McMahon Line. It came as a result of the secret discussions, without the Chinese participation or knowledge, which took place in Delhi between the British and the Tibetans in February and March of 1914."[6] This strikes me as lawyerly evasion; Maxwell doesn't deny that the finished map was presented to Chen for signature. Here is Noorani: "Meanwhile, the tripartite conference was coming to a close. On April 27, 1914, at Simla, the representatives of all the three parties initialled the convention that McMahon had presented as well as the map appended. Ivan Chen, the Chinese plenipotentiary, wrote his name in full, though."[7] Kauffner (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kauffner's interpretation of the sources on this point. --PBS (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

But I query the Noorani statement that "all the three parties initialled the convention" if by convention he means the accord, as the sources I used to draw up the text of the treaty explicitly do not list the Chinese plenipotentiary as initialling the document and the sources provided at the bottom of the article go into some detail as to what they mean by initialling. You are correct about what initialling usually means for example see the s:Protocol of the Conference of Paris (which was initialled and signed 2 weeks later as the final signature depended on other treaties being signed and those depended on the clear intention that the first existed), but in this case it seems to be more to do with Tibetan customs. --PBS (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The Simla Convention was described in detail in Maxwell's book, 'India's China War'. In regards to the intial by Ivan Chen, page 48 says:

“ McMahon was able in early April 1914 to induce Ivan Chen to initial the draft treaty which had been under discussion, and its illustrative map; but Chen did so only 'on the clear understanding that to initial and to sign them were two separate actions' - and his Government repudiated even this action the moment it learned of it, severely rebuking Chen for his unauthorized compliance. ”

Also, in page 49 and page 50 to 53 there are details how the boundary was negotiated and added to the map after the map was shown to Chinese. So, yes Kauffner, the map was initialled by Chinese, but the boundary was added after. Xingdong (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This must be the diplomatic equivalent of signing a blank cheque. No wonder he was "severely rebuked"! Do we have another source to back up Maxwell's assertions? --PBS (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely there are plenty of sources. One of them is "The China-India Border War(1962)" by Calvin, James Barnard,U.S. Navy.

“ The line was marked on a large-scale (eight miles to the inch) map; however, this map and the details of the McMahon-Tibetan agreement were not communicated to the Chinese. On a much smaller-scale map, which was used in the discussions of the Inner Tibet-Outer Tibet boundary, the McMahon-Tibetan boundary (which would become the McMahon Line) was shown as a sort of appendix to the boundary between Inner Tibet and China proper (see Map Six, below). The McMahon Line was never discussed with the Chinese at the Conference.[[8]] ”

Based on the international law, the McMahon Line is illegal. It can not be used as demarcation of international border. The wikipedia entry "The McMahon Line" also needs to be revised accordingly to reflect this nature. Xingdong (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because the large scale map was not shown to the Chinese plenipotentiary does not mean that the smaller scale map is not valid. It seems that the Chinese plenipotentiary had other issues on his mind (the inner boundary and the status of Tibet) before he was going to get around to the outer boundary. However your jump to "Based on the international law, the McMahon Line is illegal." is not necessarily valid see what Alfred von Overbeck says in Recueil Des Cours: Volume 132 (1971/I). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1972 ISBN 9028600523, 9789028600522. p.443,444. It's commonly called "facts on the ground" in diplomatic speak, ie de jure tends to follow de facto over territorial disputes, so to state that the boundary is illegal is only one POV and the dispute is one that could keep an army of lawyers (and also real armies) employed for years. --PBS (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

To use secret implies underhand, which is the POV Maxwell seems to be putting forward, as the smaller scale map was shown to the Chinese this can hardly be described as secret, and as it was intended that the Chinese would sign the accord it can hardly have remained secret. Better wording with less of a POV would be to say that the Tibetans and the British negotiated the line of the border between Tibet and India bilaterally without Chinese input and that the Chinese do not accept that the line represents the international border. --PBS (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

PBS, you missed the important point that "The McMahon Line was never discussed with the Chinese at the Conference."(Calvin) After reading more and more, we will understand that the whole thing was a scheme set up by British. But the Chinese did not accept the things shoved down their throat by the British. Leaving the secret nature of the Simla Convention alone, the faint argument that the McMahon Line is legal is based on the presumption that Tibet was a sovereign country in 1914. The presumption is obvious wrong. Xingdong (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

PBS, you actually went ahead and changed the lede section and "Conference" section by yourself. I strongly oppose the way you wrote the lede section. It gave people impression that the convention was going well, and the McMahon Line was discussed fully, but finally the Chinese refused to sign on the results. This is ABSOLUTELY not true. Ahhhh, so much has been discussed in this Talk page...Xingdong (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

<<--I did not think my specific edit to the lead had changed the lead in any significant way. I thought I had just removed repetition. I cant see that there was anything in it before my edit that indicated anything different. Is it the previous edit where I removed mention of the sentence on "The boundary was secretly negotiated ..." which you want reinstated? --PBS (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

even apologized that Britain

Here are a couple of other sources:

• Shai Oster. U.K. Policy Angers Tibet Ahead of Beijing Talks, Wall Street Journal, 1 November 2008

A British official at the foreign office in London said on Friday that Mr. Miliband's statement represented only a clarification, and that the U.K.'s actual position hasn't changed.

• Staff. China welcomes UK Tibet decision, BBC, 15 November 2008

BBC World Affairs editor John Simpson says Mr Zhu diplomatically sidestepped the question whether the British decision might be linked with Mr Brown's efforts to bring China into a new world economic order; though that is certainly what many observers think.

They also think the Dalai Lama's position has been weakened by the UK's decision, our correspondent says.

If Milliband apologised then the Official's statement in the WSJ does not make sense, but it rings much truer of how Foreign relation statements develop. For this reason as AFAICT support for the apology only appears i one independent reliable source, and it does not appear in the written answer, I don't think we should include it unless we can find it in another independent reliable source that backs up Robert Barnett's statement. -- PBS (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

PBS, keep reading... till the end of the paragraph. The unnamed British official actually hinted that British always saw Tibet as a part of China. Here is the whole paragraph from WSJ just want to save you a few clicks[[9]]:

A British official at the foreign office in London said on Friday that Mr. Miliband's statement represented only a clarification, and that the U.K.'s actual position hasn't changed. On Friday, Thubten Samphel, spokesman for the Tibetan government-in-exile based in Dharmsala, India, said: "Before 1950, we had many treaties with British India government in which Britain recognized Tibet as an independent country." For the U.K. to say now that it always saw Tibet as a part of China is "testifying to [a] falsehood," he said.

What he meant was that British has actually long regarded Tibet as part of China, just that there are some anachronism and colonial legacy need to be clarified. This is in line with what Miliband said. Is it clear enough to you?

In regards to Miliband's apology, this was something he said, NYT can't make it up. Do you need me to dig another source to prove it? Xingdong (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand exactly why Thubten Samphel said what he said, but that does not mean that the British diplomatic position today is anything other than as the FO spokesman described it (even if they are on top of the mushroom with Alice and the caterpillar), so yes I think we need another source to support the NYT article, because Milliband my have said it (as he is not a trained diplomat but a politician) but it is unlikely he did if he stuck to his FO brief. Because if the British government has always seen Tibet as part of China "Full Stop" then there is nothing to apologise for! --PBS (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why look to a statement made by an anonymous Foreign Office spokesman in 2009 to determine Britain's pre-1951 position? Here is Anthony Eden in 1943: Since the Chinese Revolution of 1911, when Chinese forces were withdrawn from Tibet, Tibet has enjoyed de facto independence. She has ever since regarded herself as in practice completely autonomous and has opposed Chinese attempts to reassert control. (Goldstein, 1989, p. 401. See also Memorandum from Sir Anthony Eden to the Chinese foreign minister, T. V. Soong, 05/08/43, FO371/93001) Kauffner (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner, why you always look to old stuff to interpret today's things? Those colonial stuff were long abandoned/annulled when the conlonial era ended. From today's standpoint, Eden's words are like $#!%. It is ok to quote what he said, but one should also make it known that it was "colonial era" thinking. Of course you will need to look at FCO's words for your guidance. The validity of this Simla Accord needs more discussion, given that China did not sign it. The Chinese reserved the rights to reassert its control. By any international law, this is legal. Even British didn't think the accord was a right thing to do, and abandoned it at first. When I have a free hand I will disuss more with you.

PBS, the apology was for British not having clarified the facts earlier, and for causing unnecessary misunderstandings. Xingdong (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Not the British way, and that is not what Wikipedia sentence says. Unless there is another reliable source to support the first one, I still suggest that we remove the clause. -- PBS (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Where does Wikipedia say that you need two reliable sources to support one's speech? Xingdong (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC).

It is not a quote from the speech it is an analysis of what he said from an opinion piece, I am disappointed that you would wish to use Wiki policy to justify the inclusion or exclusion of such a statement as I does no seem unreasonable to ask for two unconnected reliable sources to cross check something as a fact (particularly as other sources of similar or better reliability contradict the fact), but if you have to have Wikipedia policies and guidelines for this try WP:UNDUE "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." and Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text." --PBS (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the accord of 1914, not current British policy, so we should not give the recent policy shift more than a single sentence in this article. Bertport (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly true. Although this "accord" was a miscarriage, the recent British policy change gave it a final nail on the coffin. This entry still needs a lot of work. PBS, the "secret" nature deleted by you needs to add back in. I am still thinking about how to get this done. Xingdong (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not use the words in the article: "The Tibetan Indian boundary was bilaterally negotiated in New Delhi between representatives from British and Tibet."? BTW I am still waiting for the second source to corroborate the claim that Miliband apologised in the way claimed in this article. --PBS (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

For the first part, I agree the words you suggested. Please also add "It was never discussed with the Chinese at the Conference". As per our previous discussion, this is from Calvin's "China-India Border War". My point is, we need to make it clear that the Simla Convention and thus McMahon Line were part of a scheme set up by British. And Chinese did not fall for it. This has been well documented and I have put them on the "secretly negotiated" Talk section.

For the second part, I am still searching for the original words from Miliband. We can remove it for the time being. When I find the second one, I can add it back in.

Thank you! Xingdong (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion over Miliband is all I have been suggesting, and is quite acceptable to me.

I do not know enough about the details of the discussion to know if "It was never discussed with the Chinese at the Conference". So how about adding a clause to the sentence "Negotiations failed when China and Tibet could not agree over the Sino-Tibetan boundary." so it reads "Negotiations failed when China and Tibet could not agree over the Sino-Tibetan boundary, which was before any negotiations over the details of the Tibetan Indian border had began." --PBS (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

PBS, the "apologized" part

Described the old position as an anachronism and a colonial legacy, Mr. David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, even apologized that Britain had not done so earlier.

has been changed to:

Described the old position as an anachronism and a colonial legacy, Mr. David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, said Britian regards Tibet as part of the People's Republic of China.

These are words from British's Foreign and Commonwealth Office site[10].

Your suggestion on the boundary is not even close. I understand the difficulty you have when it comes to such topics. But I would suggest a few sources for you: Maxwell's "India's China War", and Calvin, James Bardard's "The China-India Border War". [11] Even though they're not historian, they give some objective background on this issue. I usually do not cite Chinese source, or Indian source, having big concern about their neutrality. I will come up with something, and discuss with you. Xingdong (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I found this:

Mr Miliband said the historic language was hampering Britain's relationship with Beijing over the aim for greater autonomy for Tibet, as well as respect for human rights.

"Our recognition of China's 'special position' in Tibet developed from the outdated concept of suzerainty," he said. "Some have used this to cast doubt on the aims we are pursuing and to claim that we are denying Chinese sovereignty over a large part of its own territory. We have made clear to the Chinese government, and publicly, that we do not support Tibetan independence."

— Evening Standard

The quote "our recognition ... can be used to find other sources of which this is probably the best (most reliable) because it is a Parliamentary briefing paper entitled "Tibet: Standard Note: SN/IA/5018 Last updated: 20 March 2009 Author: Jon Lunn, International Affairs and Defence Section" and page 8 contains the full statement by Miliband and is immediately followed by the FO statement. --PBS (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Parliamentary briefing by Jon Lunn is not a formal government statement. As you know the elected politicians represent all kinds of voice. This briefing by Mr. Lunn could be only one voice. I don't think it holds the same power as FCO's announcement. The "our recognition..." comes from the FCO's announcement, so I would think it is better to quote the FCO one, instead of this briefing. Xingdong (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The source I used for the first citation, was Page 8 in the briefing paper is the a verbatim copy of the written statement given by Miliband (and is sourced as HC Deb 29 October 2008 c30-32WS). and is the same as that on the website FO website. You will find the passage "our recognition..." starts at the second sentence of the last paragraph on page 8. So this is an impeccable source for the first statement, because the first sentence of that paragraph is "Our ability to get our points across has sometimes been clouded by the position the UK took at the start of the 20th century on the status of Tibet, a position based on the geopolitics of the time."

In addition on page 9 is a copy of the written answer to a question asked about this statement on 29 October (Bill Rammell, Minister of State at the FCO, at HC Deb 16 December 2008 c704W). Without reading the written statement and written answer out of Hansard you are not going to get any closer to an authoritative source. It is not possible that Jon Lunn would have published this parliamentary briefing paper and allowed the public access to it unless all parties in the house were in broad agreement over it, and given that he works for the "International Affairs and Defence Section" of the The House of Commons Library (See page 8 of that link) he is bound to have been in close contact with the Foreign Office, who would have provided him with sufficient information to make sure that their POV was accurately represented. For example they would not have been able to influence him over the first part of his statement "However, in October 2008 there was what some have viewed as a major shift in the British position, although the Government sees it more as an updating of it." but would have had informed him of the Government view as expressed in the second part and if he had got their view wrong have flagged it before publication.

I thought the second sentence I added was useful because that is what the papers and other annalists were saying, and because Lunn uses weasel words "what some have viewed as a major shift in the British position", it allowed me to do the same. If someone objects we can simply quote him.

Having said all is there anything in my paraphrasing of what Miliband said "David Miliband the British Foreign Secretary described the the old position as an anachronism originating in the the geopolitics of the early 20th century." that you object to, as I could find no reference to colonial legacy in his statement. --PBS (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW I understand what it is that you are trying to add to the article about the relative power between a China and Britain in the early 20th century, allowed Britain to dominate the talks, just as this latest shift in the British position reflects the changing relative power between the countries in this century. There are two points I would like to raise on this. The first is has Britain recently had secret talks with China and the Tibetan Government in Exile, or bilateral talks? "Secret talks" between China and Britain carries a different nuance to "bilateral talks". If I am Chinese I might admit to bilateral exchanges, and if I were part of the Tibetan Government in Exile I would accuse Britain of engaging in secret talks. The second point is that from what I have read is that McMahon exceeded his British Government brief, and that he had been told not to negotiate an accord which China would not be willing to agree too. So unless his brief was given to him with a wink and a nod (the secondary sources will indicate whether that is true), the outcome of the conference may well not have been British governmental policy and the fudge afterwards was to try to cover up the mess that McMahon handed to it (rather like the Nixon Watergate scandal), again the secondary sources should be able to supply the answers to this question. -- PBS (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

PBS, in general I agree with your points regarding this policy change. Only that I think previously we referenced the FCO statement, and now we changed to Lunn's brief. Although they point to the same thing, I think FCO statement would be more official.

In regards to your two points, in my opinion, first, the talks(if there was any) btw Britain and China, or Tibetan in exile didn't come up with sort of agreement, or accord/convention. Leave alone to say it hurts any third party. Given what happened during early 20th century, and the fact that China is far from what it was at that time, it is just a matter of time that British adjusts its position. I would rather believe that the policy change was a self adjustment, rather than result of any bilateral talks. So you simply can't parallel the policy change to the Simla convention.

I agree with your second point. The scam was well documented. What do you mean "the secondary sources"? Xingdong (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The advantage of the source I quote is that it is fixed in time it can always be found, in a good library. It is not ephemeral as is the Foreign Office web site page. The primary source is the statement as it appears in Hansard, both the FO web site and the source I found are secondary sources quoting a primary source.

" Leave alone to say it hurts any third party." well Britian's "clarification" did no favours to the Tibetan Government in exile or for that matter the Indian Government over its disputed border with China. What I mean by secondary sources is defined in WP:PSTS. --PBS (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Schedule appended to the Accord

Given that this Accord was never ratified, I am not sure the paragraph starting "The Schedule appended to the Accord contained further notes. ..." should be included as those notes were never agreed. What do others think? --PBS (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that we have this entry to document unratified "Simla Accord", might as well we put the Schedules in, even though the whole thing is illegal. Xingdong (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the treaty was published officially means it was ratified. As the note in Aitchison's says, it "was accepted as binding by the two other parties as between themselves." Can an unratified treaty be binding? Kauffner (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is very strange that when a treaty was not ratified but it appears in so-called Aitchison's. Is Aitchison a collection of unratified treaties?

Again, Tibet was not a sovereignty country, it didn't have the power to bind a treaty. All in all, the Simla and so-called McMahon Line was a mess(an unsuccessful British scheme to be exact). Anything based on this is not legal. Xingdong (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversies

Extended content

>==Controversies== Observers and even officials in London raise doubts on whether Lochen Shatra was in a position, in terms of international law as it was accepted by the other parties involved, to conclude any such agreement as that implied in the Anglo-Tibetan notes. Tibet could only cede territory to the British Empire if it were deemed to be a fully sovereign state; and there can be no doubt that the transfer of Tawang to the British side of the McMahon Line involved the cession to the British of what had hitherto been Tibetan jurisdiction. In March 1914 the British were negotiating with the ROC a treaty which made it clear that Tibet was part of Chinese territory and, indeed, had been under some measure of Chinese control as far as foreign relations were concerned since at least 1890. The Tibetan delegation might consider themselves to be fully sovereign; but within the legal atmosphere of the Simla Conference it is difficult to see how the British representatives in Simla could actually argue in that sense, and, in fact, they refrained from doing so in their explanation of the 1914 proceedings to London. Secondly, in any case the British representatives was prohibited by the terms of the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 from entering into direct relations with Tibet except through the intermediary of the Chinese suzerain and from disturbing the territorial integrity of Tibet. Observers state that even if it might be maintained that the failure of the Chinese to approve the Accord conferred a measure of freedom in international relationship upon the Tibetans, this still did not absolve the British delegation from the restrictions of the Anglo-Russian Convention. This obstacle to UK diplomacy did not formally disappear until 1924 when the 1907 Convention was abolished in a new Anglo-USSR Treaty. Notes

I have remove this because although I happen to agree with it, it builds up an argument to present one side of a dispute which can also be presented in other ways, and can not therefore be considered neutral and probably is a breach of WP:SYN. It comes down to "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves" and this section as written is expressing opinions not facts about opinions. -- PBS (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Fully understood but I raise doubts. If so, then the section title "2008 British policy change", which clearly builds up a POV argument (which is an opinion by your definition), should not stay as the context and the citations clearly show that some says its a change and some say it isn't. I use "Revised" to get the balance right but it just got reverted.

Western scholars throughout the ROC and even the PRC years agreed that the controversies do exist. GOI officially confirmed [fact by your definition] the two points (violating Anglo-Russian Entente and the Anglo-Chinese of 1906) which are in conformity with my previous edits. The GOI instructions to Charles Bell:

The Government of India have read with interest your summary of the advavtage gained by Tibet and ourselves under the Simla Convention, but that interest is necessarily purely academic since the Simla Convention has not been signed by the Chinese Government or accepted by the Russian Government and is, therefore, for the present invalid.

- India Office Records(IOR/L/PS/0/344), Foreign Secretary to the Government of India, dated 3 Sep 1915

"The Simla Convention and its appended Indo-Tibetan agreement did not appear in Aitchison's Treaties (the official GOI record), including the final 1929 edition, since the unratified Simla Convention was not a valid international treaty and the Indo-Tibetan agreement was secret. The 1929 edition was withdrawn by a British Indian official, Olaf Caroe, in 1938, and a new edition was issued that included the Simla Convention and the McMahon-Shartra notes (but not the Anglo-Tibetan agreement or the McMahon Line map)

- Smith, Warren, "Tibetan Nation", p201 n163

These are facts. I don't see it was building up any POV/opinions.

Thirdly, the statement by Sinha is typical Indian POV ("China never disagreed"). Why? In the GOI statement quoted above, the British/Indian officials already admitted that boundary stuff came from a "secret Anglo-Tibetan Declaration", it technically proves Sinha's ex post facto statement wrong and that's why I use wordings like "Indian Foreign Ministry claims" as a balance but this edit just got reverted. Kindly note that I didn't remove those Xinhua-liked POVs by Sinha, I just let the readers draw their conclusion.

Sinha unilaterally claims that according to a photographic reproduction provided by the "Indian Ministry of External Affairs" in 1960, Chinese did sign the two maps. However, Sinha doesn't verify the reproduction whether it's the same as the McMahon-Shartra-finalized edition. Indeed, the same maps reproduced in Dorothy Woodman's Himalayan Frontiers: A Political Review and PRC official publication (Zhou Enlai's letter to other Asian nations) show no Chinese signatures. Non-Indian sources widely rejects the ROI claims:

In April, 1914, McMahon pressured the Chinese delegate into initialing a text based on the Tibetan-approved line. The Chinese government immediately repudiated the agreement. The Chinese rejection was a blow to McMahon's buffer scheme. However, McMahon had meanwhile negotiated another buffer and zone of defense for the Himalayas. He had made a separate agreement with the chief Tibetan delegate; this agreement defined the frontier line along the crest of the Assam Himalayas, based on the 1911-13 Abor Expedition. The line was marked on a large-scale (eight miles to the inch) map; however, this map and the details of the McMahon-Tibetan agreement were not communicated to the Chinese.

- Calvin, James B., "The China-India Border War"

In July, the conference was closed without Chinese signing the convention. London had instructed McMahon all along not to sign bilaterally with Tibetans if China refused, but McMahon proceeded to sign with the Tibetan representative while Ivan Chen was sent to the next room. Chen was not told of what was being signed and the declaration was kept as secret for many years

- Maxwell, N., "India's China War"

Why only quoted Sinha's? Isn't it POV or "one-side argument" by your definition? Generally, I smell organized POV-pushing in this article (see also Sino-Indian War, McMahon Line). - MainBody (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Change is better, it can be a small change, "a revision" or a large change "major shift", the title does not say which. It is the British Governments POV that it is a revision, not a major shift.

To says "Indian source", is a POV unless there is a source that says it is not true, further in this context "Indian sources currently claim" implies the official Indian government position, something that a 36 year civilian source can not be used to justify.

You can not use "India Office Records(IOR/L/PS/0/344), Foreign Secretary to the Government of India, dated 3 Sep 1915" directly you have to cite a secondary source that cites it, otherwise it is OR.

Another point that has not been considered is the change of regime in Russia was not immediately recognised by Britain, whether that affected consideration of how binding the treaties between Britain and the former Russian regime before they recognised the Soviet Union as the successor state, I don't know, but sources that go into detail over this issue ought to take it into consideration.

As far as I know there is no specific POV pushing on this article, other than to explain the British "revision" of their position on the issue one has to explain the before and after views of the British and if the presentation is such that the accord was never accepted by the British, then there would be no need for the British to revise their position. -- PBS (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Confused

British government renounced treaty in 1921. Chinese government never acknowledged the treaty. 14th Dalai Lama, self-proclaimed leader of tibet, acknowledged the legitimacy of treaty which British already renounced.

Which part is disputed?

btw. I signed an agreement with a Mexican ceding my basement to Mexican sovereign territory, of which the country of Mexico never acknowledges. Does that action demonstrate my basement is a sovereign country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.101.125 (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

See the first sentence was a disputed treaty -- PBS (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It was the Anglo-Russian convention that was renounced in 1921, not Simla. This is relevant because the Anglo-Russian convention was cited as a reason to reject Simla earlier. As far as the word "disputed" goes, it's just WP:Weasel. Kauffner (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Britain & Tibet

If Britain recognized Tibet as part of China in 2008, how can that possibly be relevant to Simla? India inherited the treaty when it became independent in 1949. India recognized Tibet as a part of China in the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence in 1954. The only thread that connects this entire section to Simla is Robert Barnett's opinion piece. He's not an international lawyer and the NYT article isn't a legal analysis. There are two throw away sentences about Simla in his article, both just speculative. Some Wiki editor with an anti-Indian axe to grind has taken this thin thread and spun it into a two paragraph section. Kauffner (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see the need for a paragraph based on a 2008 NYT piece, which is not even about the Simla Accord, in this article. This article is about the 1914 treaty, not current British diplomatic policy. And even if the topic were in scope, the source does not merit inclusion, let alone such prominent display. Bertport (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Kauffner what is your evidence that "Some Wiki editor with an anti-Indian axe to grind ..." I wrote most of the section and I have no Indian or anti-Indian axe to grind. I wrote the initial paragraph when I wrote the initial article entry which I did because I found the British statement interesting and Wikipedia did not have an article on the subject. As the article expanded so did that paragraph.

The section carries 4 citation it is not based on one article. A Google book search on [suzerain Simla Accord] and [suzerainty Simla Accord] brings back a number of reliable sources over the issue of the Accord and suzerain. The particular opinion piece not a one off opinion but typical of much of what was said at the time. The whole point is that once Britain surrendered its potion on this, the accord was no longer disputed but simply dead. Britain did not make the comments out of the blue and for no reason, it was clearly a diplomatic move. Here are two other reliable British sources that make the connection with Simla and Milibands statement:

• Richard Spencer (5 November 2008) UK recognises China's direct rule over Tibet, Daily Telegraph:

  "Britain's position derives from its colonial history – a reason why ministers and the Tibetan movement itself have rarely emphasised it. The Simla accords of 1913 set the boundary between Tibet and British-ruled India. They reflected the fact that Tibet had fallen within first the Mongolian and then the Chinese military orbit in previous centuries but had mostly governed itself. Britain was said to recognise Chinese "suzerainty" but not "sovereignty" over the region ... While the distinction might be obscure, it meant there was a basis in international law, backed by a permanent UN Security Council member, for Tibet to be recognised as distinct from other "provinces" of China."

• Nicholas Cecil (6 November 2008) Miliband 'undermining Dalai Lama over Tibet'" London Standard:

  "The Foreign Secretary was accused of undermining the Dalai Lama's talks with the Chinese authorities by updating Britain's position on Tibet. Britain's stance dates back to the Simla accords of 1913 which laid down the boundaries between Tibet and British-ruled India. ... Robbie Barnett, a Tibetan expert at Columbia University in New York, claimed the Government had weakened the hand of the Dalai Lama. He said: "This is more than a bargaining chip. This is the entire legal and political foundation for these talks.""

Although India inherited the treaties and responsibilities from the old Indian Empire, that does not mean that the British government ceased to be an active player in this issue. If the had then they would have had no reason to issue the deceleration that they did in 2008. -- PBS (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Neither of these quotes makes the claim that the disputed text makes: That Britain's revised position on Tibet undermines India's territorial claims. The post-2008 British position on Tibet is exactly what India's has been all along. As far as the suzerainty issue goes, the word was already a common way to describe the China/Tibet relationship before Simla. For example, Curzon used it in 1903 and it appears in the 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention. I found this same material in Tibetan sovereignty debate and in McMahon Line. You've inserted it into as many articles as possible, like you are running an advertising campaign? Kauffner (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No one is arguing that the Simla Accord created suzerainty for Tibet, but Britain in 1910s had to consider Tibet either independent to to have suzerainty otherwise there was no point in agreeing the bilateral terms of the Simla Accord.

You wrote "The only thread that connects this entire section to Simla is Robert Barnett's opinion piece." and removed the whole section with the comment "2008 stuff. It has no relationship to the treaty, unless you accept Barnett's theory, which is an oddball view that is being given WP:UNDUE prominence" yet there were other sources given and I have presented a couple more here. The British change of policy cut the legs out from under the Tibetan position (which only goes to show in international relations the old adage that "in international relations states do not have friends they only interests" is still alive and kicking). What you seem to be objecting to is the sentence:

"Tibetologist Robert Barnett thinks that the decision has wider implications. India’s claim to a part of its northeast territories, for example, is largely based on the same agreements — notes exchanged during the Simla convention of 1914, which set the boundary between India and Tibet — that the British appear to have just discarded."

which is not a reason to deletion of whole section. Further there is nothing radical in what he is saying as without Simila India's claim to boarder is less secure than it is with Simila.

--PBS (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2011‎ (UTC)

Page move: Simla Convention

This page should be titled Simla Convention, not "Simla Accord". Practically all the reliable sources call it so. Some examples:

• Goldstein
• Hoffmann
• Parshotam Mehra, JSTOR 2052598
• Tsering Shakya

In fact "Simla Accord" was the name used to refer to the India-Pakistan Simla Agreement of 1972. There was no use of that term till then. See Google ngram viewer. Perhaps some newspapers later on used the new term for the old Convention, but that is not authentic terminology. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Speculation of Britian being corrupt and wanting IMF bribes?

Where is the proof that Britian changed from recognizing chinese suzerainty to sovereinty because China agreed to put more money into the IMF bank account? It makes it seem like the British don't genuinely recognize their own foreign policies and are easily bought. Except for the fact that britian has essentially and practically recognised tibet as part of china since 1906.

So modern Britian could only do two things, Break their 1906 treaty with china and recognise tibet as independant. Or honor their 1906 treaty with china and reocgnise tibet as being under only china's domain. They chose the latter path. Them saying that they reocgnise tibet as part of china from the beginning and not to be misunderstood. Full stop. They don't need china to bribe the IMF - that is just specualtions with no proof and just because some authors are speculating on that. To put it in the wiki article, is only misleading people given the utter lack of evidence to prove such a wild and extreme accusation.49.195.183.131 (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfair edit warring

The info I want to be added in are real information backed by solid reliable sources yet others claim it's pov pushing after only a few hours by editors who are too emotionally close to the article and deleting info that only Indian natioanlists want hidden. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/et-commentary/1962-war-moving-on-from-our-created-china-myths/articleshow/32386638.cms?from=mdr. So I am on the talk page for those who actually want to discuss it. I will wait for a fair response after 72 hours and if nobody can dispute my info. Then I will add it in. Not giving a reply is no excuse but I am here to avoid edit warring and ask the other editors who claim pov pushing, to make their points here in response to my edits and acknowledge facts.

Facts - the British government recognized china as having surzienty over Tibet. Hence it is highly unusual for British representatives to give up on chinese approval and write a contract with toibetans, that ironically acknowledges Tibet as being under chinese surzeinty. And claim the contract is legal when chinese surzeinty means that they need chinese approval for any agreements made with tibet. Hence adding "context" that the the British government recognized china as having surzienty over Tibet, is both true and highly noteworthy and should be added in.

I suggest adding in context prior to the sentence in the Third Paragraph in the article - WRITING (Despite the British government recognized China having suzerainty ovet Tibet, the British and Tibetan plenipotentiaries then attached a bilateral declaration that stated that the convention would be binding on themselves and that China would be denied any privileges under the convention.)

It's not false nor pov pushing but simply not hiding the context that no scholar nor even the modern British government even denies. Make your response on why that info is not true 49.195.183.131 (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You need to answer the issues I have raised in the above section. If you want to propose some new content here, which is a good thing to do on contentious topics, please state the content along with the sources for them. Avoid stating your opinions and explanations etc. They are of no consequence to Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I have already objected to your supposed "explanation", viz., "Despite the British government recognized China having suzerainty over Tibet". That is WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok I PROPOSE to add in the contextual sentence that you or some other editors may have deleted. source - https://books.google.com.au/books?id=dosnYnxzTD4C&pg=PA279&redir_esc=y

-The British records show that there are conditions for the Tibetan government to accept the new border in 1914, the condition was that China must accept the Simla Convention, since the British was not able to get an acceptance from China, Tibetans considered the McMahon Line invalid.

The British government in their 1907 treaty with Russia, recognised that neither party should meddle with tibetan affairs unless they have chinese permission since they ultimately recognized china as having surzeinty over tibet. Signing any contracts with tibet is void without chinese signatures. I am not suggesting that we say the contract is void. I am suggesting that we mention the REAL background history that Birtian has never once recignised tibet as independent or not under chinese domain so to make a contract with tibetans without chinese permission, is simply contradicting their then existing British laws and foreign policy. 49.195.183.131 (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Also ""Despite the British government recognized China having suzerainty over Tibet" is essential context that should not be omitted. If china did not have suzerainty over Tibet, then contracts with tibetans would not have any issues. The only reason why anyone wants to hide this info that is not even denied by you, is because it shows that the British government made a treaty that betrays their previous treaties with china and russia and should not be hidden. 49.195.183.131 (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)