New York, May 27: A resource talk by Dr. Lobsang Sangay on 17-Point Agreement was organised by the Regional Tibetan Youth Congress of New York and New Jersey (RTYC NY &NJ) starting at 2:00pm at the Circular Eseanol Hall here today.
As announced earlier, the talk session started at 2:00pm her at the Circula Eseanol Hall. Mr Tsering Palden, president of the regional youth congress of NY/NJ gave the introductory speech in which he pointed out the 17-Point Agreement is entirely an illegal and forged document commanding no legitimacy as per international standards.
Describing the agreement as one wholly imposed by force on Tibetan delegations by the Communist China, Mr Palden said there is no point why the agreement should be considered or accepted by the Tibetans.
Among other reasons for not accepting the said agreement, Mr Palden mentions three; firstly because the Agreement was not made on equal terms, secondly the Chinese themselves had violated their own terms and thirdly right after seeking political refuge in India, His Holiness the Dalai Lama openly repudiated the legality of the agreement.
Dr. Lobsang Sengay gave an explanation of the Seventeen Point Agreement from historical perspectives. He said that the seventeen point agreement has been studied and presented by various experts such as International Commission of Jurists, Thomas Laird, Ken Kneth Knauss, Warren Smith, Michael VanValt Praag, Tsering Shakya and Alfred Rubin.
His talk for the day was based on research by Dr Alfred Rubin. He said that three resolutions have been passed in UN in 1959, 1961 and 1965, which mostly stressed on human rights and religious freedom in Tibet. Dr Sangay, however, pointed out that there is no mention of China in these resolutions.
The talk was later followed by question and answer session. Dr Sangay’s talk raised many interesting fundamental and historical aspects of the agreement.
On April 18, 1959, after arriving in India, His Holiness the Dalai Lama issued a press statement in Tezpur, Assam stating that the 17 Point Agreement had been signed under pressure from the Chinese government. Later on June 20 that year, he issued another press statement from Mussoorie in which he repudiated the “Agreement” describing it as having been forced upon Tibet by invasion, threat and deceit.
Dr. Sangay is a Research Fellow at East Asian Legal Studies Program, Harward Law School.
Based on report forwarded by Sonam Wangchuk via email
