Chinese Graphic Design in the Twentieth Century

Even though the Lamaist state (1913-51) enjoyed de facto independence, there was no serious attempt to recognize it as independent. Writing the "Chinese Suzerainty-Tibetan Autonomy" Formula The British throughout the first part of the twentieth century stuck to the formula-Chinese suzerainty-Tibetan autonomy. In a memorandum of 17 August 1912, the British government clarified its stance: "While recognising the Chinese suzerainty, they were not prepared to admit the right of China to interfere in the internal administration of Tibet" (Foreign Office 1920, 41). Thus, "Outer Tibet would become an autonomous state under Chinese suzerainty and British protectorate" (ibid., 43). The desire not to let support for Tibetan autonomy be interpreted as support for Tibetan independence is reflected in a letter of the India Office dated 11 July 1912 clarifying the British position on Tibet. It was modified internally before being presented to the outside world and stated: (1) His Majesty's Government, while they have formally recognised the "suzerain rights" of China in Tibet, have never recognised, and are not prepared to recognise, Chinese sovereignty over that country. (2) H. M.'s Govt. does not admit the right of China to intervene actively in the internal administration of Tibet. (IOR: L/P &S/10/265 1912, 47) [51] Even when Morley was projecting the British as an "honest broker" in the Simla Talks (BOD MS Asquith 93 1913, 235), the British did not really care about the suzerainty-sovereignty issue so long as their interests were being met ...»