text:
Foreign relations of Tibet

The foreign relations of Tibet are documented from the 7th century onward, when Buddhism was introduced by missionaries from India and Nepal. The Tibetan Empire fought with the Tang dynasty for control over territory dozens of times, despite peace marriage twice. Tibet was conquered by the Mongol Empire and that changed its internal system of government, introducing the Dalai Lamas, as well as subjecting Tibet to political rule under the Yuan dynasty. Tibetan foreign relations during the Ming dynasty are opaque, with Tibet being either a tributary state or under full Chinese sovereignty. But by the 18th century, the Qing dynasty indisputably made Tibet a subject. In the early 20th century, after a successful invasion, Britain established a trading relationship with Tibet and was permitted limited diplomatic access to "Outer Tibet", basically Shigatse and Lhasa. Britain supported Tibetan autonomy under the 13th Dalai Lama but did not contest Chinese suzerainty; while "Inner Tibet", areas such as Amdo and Kham with mixed Chinese and Tibetan populations to the east and north, remained nominally under the control of the Republic of China although that control was seldom effective. Although the sovereignty of Tibet was unrecognized, Tibet was courted in unofficial visits from Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the United States during and after World War II. The foreign relations of Tibet ended with the Seventeen Point Agreement that formalized Chinese sovereignty over most all of political Tibet in 1951.

Early history
Little is known of Tibet before the 7th century when Buddhism was introduced by missionaries from India; since the 7th century the Tibetan Empire emerged as a strong empire which lasted until the 9th century.

Relations with the Tang dynasty
The Tang dynasty (618–907) and the Tibetan Empire (618–842) were both powerful empires. Sino-Tibetan relations during the period between 618 and 842 were characterized by almost constant conflict and periodic attempts at peace-making.

It is recorded in Tibetan tradition that after Songtsen Gampo died in 650, the Chinese Tang dynasty attacked and captured Lhasa, however there is no record of it from Chinese sources.

There was a stone pillar, the Lhasa Zhol rdo-rings, in the ancient village of Zhol in front of the Potala in Lhasa, dating to c. 764 CE during the reign of Trisong Detsen. The inscription contains an account of the brief capture of Chang'an, the Chinese capital, in 763 CE during the reign of Emperor Daizong of Tang. As of 1993 the pillar was surrounded by buildings and wire so it could not be approached closely.

In 785, Wei Kao, a Chinese serving as an official in Shuh repulsed Tibetan invasions of the area.

A stone monument dating to 823 and setting out the terms of peace and borders between Tibet and China arrived at in 821 can still be seen in front of the Jokhang temple in Barkhor Square in Lhasa. The monument, a treaty of friendship, is written in both Tibetan and Chinese. The inscribed pillar was erected by the Chinese in 1793 during a smallpox epidemic. It records the Sino-Tibetan treaty of 822 concluded by King Ralpacan and includes the following inscription: "Tibet and China shall abide by the frontiers of which they are now in occupation. All to the east is the country of Great China; and all to the west is, without question, the country of Great Tibet. Henceforth on neither side shall there be waging of war nor seizing of territory. If any person incurs suspicion he shall be arrested; his business shall be inquired into and he shall be escorted back." The inscription also carried advice on hygiene measures to prevent smallpox.

The relations between the two countries appears to have been complex. On the one hand, the monument describes connections between China and Tibet as similar to those between uncle and nephew. The Tang dynasty of China and the Yarlung dynasty of Tibet were indeed related by marriage, yet the terms uncle and nephew are not used in relation to other groups with whom the Chinese had connections by marriage. On the other hand, the monument seems to describe the two countries as equals. The text has been published several times.

Relations with the Song dynasty
The Tibetan Empire and the Tang dynasty, both of which were military powers, fell in 842 and 907 respectively. After that, Tibet entered an era of disunity known as the Era of Fragmentation. The Sino-Tibetan relations during the Song dynasty (960–1279) were ones of relative peace and cultural creativity.

Mongol conquest and Tibet under the Yuan dynasty
After the Mongol Prince Köden took control of the Kokonor region in 1239, in order to investigate the possibility of attacking Song China from the West, he sent his general Doorda Darqan on a reconnaissance mission into Tibet in 1240. During this expedition the Kadampa (Bka'-gdams) monasteries of Rwa-sgreng and Rgyal-lha-khang were burned, and 500 people killed. The death of Ögödei the Mongol Khan in 1241 brought Mongol military activity around the world ground, temporarily, to a halt. Mongol interests in Tibet resumed in 1244 when Prince Köden sent an invitation to Sakya Pandita (1182–1251) to come to his capital and formally surrender Tibet to the Mongols. Sakya Pandita arrived in Kokonor with his two nephews 'Phags-pa (1235–80) and Phyag-na Rdo-rje (1239–67) in 1246.

After an internecine feud among the Mongol princes Kublai was appointed by Möngke Khan to take charge over the Chinese campaigns in 1253. Since Sakya Pandita had already died Kublai took 'Phags-pa into his camp as a symbol of Tibet's surrender. Kublai was elected Khagan in 1260 following the death of his brother Möngke, although his ascendance was not uncontested. At that point he named 'Phags-pa as "State Preceptor" (Guoshi). In 1265 'Phags-pa returned to Tibet and for the first time made an attempt to impose Sakya hegemony with the appointment of Sakya Bzang-po (a long time servant and ally of the Sakyas) as the dpon-chen ('great administrator') over Tibet in 1267. A census was conducted in 1268 and Tibet was divided into 13 myriarchies.

In 1269 'Phags-pa returned to Kublai's side at his new capital Khanbaliq (modern day Beijing). He presented Kublai Khan with a new script (the 'Phags-pa script) designed to represent all of the languages of the empire. The next year he was named Imperial Preceptor (Dishi) of the Yuan dynasty, and his position as titular ruler of Tibet (now in the form of its 13 myriarchies) was reconfirmed, while the Mongols managed a structural and administrative rule over the region. The Yuan-Sakya hegemony over Tibet continued into the middle of the 14th century, although it was challenged by a revolt of the 'Bri-khung sect with the assistance of Hülegü of the Ilkhanate in 1285. The revolt was suppressed in 1290 when the Sakyas and eastern Mongols burned 'Bri-khung and killed 10,000 people (cf. Wylie 1977).

Relations with the Ming dynasty
Modern historians still debate on the exact relationship the Chinese Ming dynasty (1368–1644) had with Tibet. Modern Chinese sources assert that the Ming dynasty had full sovereignty over Tibet, while scholars outside China generally assert that Tibet was simply an independent tributary and that the Ming merely had nominal suzerainty over Tibet by granting some lamas honorific titles.

Tibet under the Qing dynasty
The armies of the Qing dynasty first entered Tibet in response to a request for help when Tibet was invaded by the Dzungar Mongols in 1717. After the defeat of a first expeditionary force in the Battle of the Salween River in 1718 the Chinese expedition in 1720 was successful in restoring the Dalai Lama to power in Lhasa. Troops were withdrawn in 1723 leaving a civilian Chinese adviser in Lhasa. When civil war broke out in 1728 there were appeals from both sides for help from China and an army was once again dispatched to Lhasa. It was decided to appoint two "ambans", civilian Chinese advisers to the Tibetan government, who would be guarded by a small military force. When there was unrest in 1750 an army was again dispatched and the ambans given more power. However, the ambans, isolated from imperial power centers, soon fell under the control of the local government. There was a long period of peace, and neglect by the Chinese of Tibetan affairs, but in 1792 an invasion by Gurkas of Nepal resulted in an appeal for aid and a successful Chinese response. In 1893 the Chinese imposed reforms in Tibet which resulted in closing of its borders to foreign travelers, but despite intentions to strengthen the role of the ambens, a long period of Chinese neglect followed which continued throughout the 19th century during which Tibet was "closed" but effectively on its own.

China did not make any attempt to impose direct rule on Tibet and the Tibetan government around the Dalai Lama or his regent continued to manage its day-to-day affairs, thus in their own view remaining independent. It was only after the invasion of imperial troops under the command of Zhao Erfeng in 1910 that an attempt at direct rule was made. The Tibetans were not cooperative and after the Republican Revolution of 1911 openly rebelled, surviving Chinese soldiers being evacuated through India. Declarations of independence made by the Dalai Lama were not recognized by Britain or China, but an effective military frontier was established which excluded troops and agents of the Chinese government until the invasion by the People's Liberation Army in 1950.

British mission to the Panchen Lama
After the Panchen Lama sent a letter to Warren Hastings first Governor-General of India with respect to a conflict of the British with Bhutan the British governor-general sent George Bogle in 1774 as emissary to the Panchen Lama. Traveling through Bhutan to the Panchen Lama's seat at Tashilhunpo in 1775 Bogle established friendly relations with the 3rd Panchen Lama, Lobsang Palden Yeshe, so friendly that he took a close relative of the Panchen Lama as his wife. On Bogle's death Captain Samuel Turner was appointed. However, following Hastings departure from India in 1785, there were no further direct relations with Tibet until late in the 19th century. Neither envoy was able to obtain permission to visit Lhasa or gain access to the Dalai Lama.

Russia and The Great Game
Between 1898 and 1901 Ngawang Dorjee traveled to St. Petersburg three times as an envoy of the Tibetan government. Gifts were exchanged and friendly relationships established, but no formal recognition resulted nor establishment of a Russian diplomatic presence in Lhasa. Ngawang Dorjee, the envoy, was one of the Buryats, a Lamaist people from the trans-Baikal region of Siberia, who had traveled to Tibet as a youth, studied at Drepung Monastery, been awarded the degree of Lharam Geshe, "Master of Metaphysics, and appointed one of the seven Lharam Geshe teachers of the young 13th Dalai Lama. In 1907, a treaty between Britain and Russia recognized Chinese suzerainty over Tibet and agreed not to negotiate with Tibet except through the intermediary of the Chinese government.Tibet Justice Center - Legal Materials on Tibet - Treaties and Conventions Relating to Tibet - Convention Between Great Britain and Russia (1907)[391]

The 1904 British expedition of Tibet
In 1904 A British diplomatic mission, accompanied by a large military escort, forced its way through to Lhasa.UK and China Relations The head of the diplomatic mission was Colonel Francis Younghusband. The principal motivation for the British mission was a fear, which proved to be unfounded, that Russia was extending its footprint into Tibet and possibly even giving military aid to the Tibetan government. When the mission reached Lhasa, the Dalai Lama had already fled to Urga in Mongolia, but a treaty known as the Treaty of Lhasa was signed by lay and ecclesasiastical officials of the Tibetan government, and by representatives of the three monasteries of Sera, Drepung, and Ganden. The treaty made provisions for the frontier between Sikkim and Tibet to be respected, for freer trade between British and Tibetan subjects, and for an indemnity to be paid from the Tibetan Government to the British Government for its expenses in dispatching armed troops to Lhasa. It also made provision for a British trade agent to reside at the trade mart at Gyantse. The provisions of this 1904 treaty were confirmed in a 1906 treaty signed between Britain and China, in which the British also agreed "not to annex Tibetan territory or to interfere in the administration of Tibet." The position of British Trade Agent at Gyantse was occupied from 1904 up until 1944. It was not until 1937, with the creation of the position of "Head of British Mission Lhasa", that a British officer had a permanent posting in Lhasa itself. (McKay, 1997, p. 230-1).

Republican period
In 1912, in the aftermath of the Xinhai Revolution, despite Chinese troops having withdrawn from Tibet, the Republic of China officially maintained that Tibet was an integral part of China but did not attempt to re-occupy it. In 1913, Tibet and the Bogd Khanate of Mongolia signed a treaty proclaiming their independence from China, and their mutual recognition. In 1914 a treaty was negotiated in India, the Simla Convention, representatives of China, Tibet and Britain participated. Again, Chinese suzerainty over Tibet was recognized and a boundary negotiated between British India and Tibet which was very generous to Britain. The treaty was never signed by the Chinese and thus never came into force. The Chinese raised a number of objections, especially their refusal to recognize any treaty between Tibet and Britain. The subsequent outbreak of the world wars and civil war in China caused distractions for the major powers and China, and the Tibetan government continued to exercise effective control over much of the historic lands of Tibet until 1950 despite endemic war with China on its eastern frontier during much of that period.

Relations with Britain
During most of the Republican period Tibet looked to Britain for diplomatic and military aid with respect to China. Military aid was given, but in only small quantities.

Following expulsion of the Chinese Tibet declared itself independent but was recognized by no nation other than Mongolia. Military clashes continued on the eastern frontier with China but a truce was called, while China, Tibet, and Britain attempted to negotiate a comprehensive settlement at Simla in India from 1913 to 1915. This was a failure with respect to China, which refused to assent to expansive Tibetan demands despite having no effective control, or even access, to most of the lands claimed by Tibet. However a successful agreement was made between Tibet and Britain which established mechanisms for trade. War continued on the eastern frontier with China until a truce was signed in October, 1918 which endured until 1930. Attempts at a settlement with China were fruitless due to Tibetan demands that China adhere to the Simla Accord and nationalist popular sentiment in China.

Kuomintang Pacification of Qinghai
The Chinese Muslim Generals Ma Qi and his son Ma Bufang, who pledged allegiance to the Chinese government, initiated a bloody campaign against Tibetans in Qinghai province to subdue the region.

Sino-Tibetan War
In 1932, the Muslim Qinghai and Han-Chinese Sichuan armies of the National Revolutionary Army led by Chinese Muslim General Ma Bufang and Han General Liu Wenhui defeated the Tibetan army in the Sino-Tibetan War when the 13th Dalai Lama tried to seize territory in Qinghai and Xikang. Ma Bufang overran the Tibetan armies and recaptured several counties in Xikang province. Shiqu, Dengke, and other counties were seized from the Tibetans. The Tibetans were pushed back to the other side of the Jinsha river. Ma and Liu warned Tibetan officials not to dare cross the Jinsha river again. Ma Bufang defeated the Tibetans at Dan Chokorgon. Several Tibetan generals surrendered, and were demoted by the Dalai Lama. By August, the Tibetans lost so much land to Liu Wenhui and Ma Bufang's forces that the Dalai Lama telegraphed the British government of India for assistance. British pressure led to Nanjing to declare a ceasefire. Separate truces were signed by Ma and Liu with the Tibetans in 1933, ending the fighting.

German expedition to Tibet
The 1938–1939 German expedition to Tibet was an expedition that arrived to Tibetan territory in 1939 and was led by Ernst Schäfer.

On September 29, this group had been observed by the British authorities in India. The expedition under the patronage of Heinrich Himmler's Ahnenerbe Institute was guided by Ernst Schäfer, an SS officer.

Japanese expedition to Tibet
At about the same time, the 1939 Japanese expedition to Tibet of the Japanese ordered Kwantung Army agents to arrive in Tibet and Xinjiang to research the country and make contact with the inhabitants. Muslim warlord Ma Bufang was also an obstruction to Japanese agents trying to contact the Tibetans, he was called an "adversary" by a Japanese agent.

Wartime relations with China
Under orders from the Kuomintang government of Chiang Kai-shek, Ma Bufang repaired Yushu airport to prevent Tibetan separatists from seeking independence. Chiang also ordered Ma Bufang to put his Muslim soldiers on alert for an invasion of Tibet in 1942. Ma Bufang complied, and moved several thousand troops to the border with Tibet. Chiang also threatened the Tibetans with bombing if they did not comply. Ma Bufang attacked the Tibetan Buddhist Tsang monastery in 1941. He also constantly attacked the Labrang monastery.

Wartime relations with the United States
The first United States mission to Tibet entrusted to Captain Ilya Tolstoy, a grandson of the novelist, a "reconnaissance mission" codenamed "FE-2" and approved by Franklin Delano Roosevelt on May 12, 1942, was sent by the OSS "...to move across Tibet and make its way to Chungking, China, observing attitudes of the people of Tibet; to seek allies and discover enemies; locate strategic targets and survey the territory as a possible field for future activity." As an aristocrat Tolstoy was well equipped to deal with the British aristocrats of the Indian Raj and the Tibetan aristocrats of Lhasa. He was accompanied by Lieutenant Brooke Dolan II who had previously engaged in extensive naturalistic explorations in Tibet on behalf of the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Science. Leaving Washington in July, 1942, the party spent 3 months in India arranging permission to visit Lhasa. Permission was granted by the Tibetan government in September, 1942 to come to Lhasa and present gifts and a letter from President Roosevelt. On their way to Lhasa the expedition made contact in Yatung with a member of the Pandatsang family of Kham which controlled Tibet's external wool trade, a major source of government revenue. Arriving in Lhasa in early December, they were granted an audience December 20, 1942 with the Dalai Lama, then only 7 years old. A letter from Franklin Roosevelt was delivered which was carefully phrased as being addressed to the Dalai Lama as a religious leader but not as the ruler of Tibet. Gifts were given to the Dalai Lama and gifts were received from the Tibetan cabinet, the Kashag. Tolstoy remained for three months but did not attempt to raise the question of transshipment of supplies to China as he could see the unfavorable attitude of the Tibetans. Tolstoy, joined by the head of the British mission in Tibet, Frank Ludlow, may have intimated to the Tibetans during this period that Tibet would be permitted to send a delegation to the postwar peace conference, an unauthorized representation both knew would not be supported by their respective governments. The Tibetans, on their quarter, were enthusiastic about the prospect. Permission was granted to Tolstoy and Dolan to continue on to China. The expedition, accompanied by a monk, a Tibetan official, and 5 Tibetan soldiers, left Lhasa in late February bound for China. Tolstoy arrived at Lanzhou in late June, 1943.

Little was accomplished as a result of the Tolstoy expedition other than establishing contact and the gathering of intelligence; although, a substantial report was prepared by Tolstoy and Donal on the geography, facilities, and people encountered on their journey as well as many photographs. Contacts made would prove useful later when the CIA offered aid to Tibetan rebels. Serious consideration was given to using a route over the Tibetan Plateau, but as the amount that could be transported by pack train was minuscule, and the agreement of both the Chinese and Tibetans would have to be obtained, the idea was abandoned in summer, 1944. However a small import quota was granted to Tibetan wool dealers by the United States and the promised three radio transmitters and six receivers were delivered to the Tibetan government in 1944; although great difficulty was encountered in setting them up and using them due to lack of trained technicians. While in Tibet, Tolstoy and the British resident had raised the possibility that Tibet might participate in post-war conferences. This never came to fruition as both Britain and the United States, in consideration of their relations with China, continued to take the position that Tibet was not a sovereign country.

The subject of Tibet arose briefly in international affairs in 1942-43 as a result efforts by the U.S. to fly aid to China over the Himalayas following the closure of the Burma Road. An America plane crashed in Tibet, and its five crew members were escorted back to India. The U.S. sent a mission to Lhasa led by Captain Ilya Tolstoy to study the possibility of an air supply route crossing Tibetan territory. Although the project was not pushed any further, it created a need to clarify Tibet's status in international law. In 1942, US State Department formally notified the Chinese government based in wartime capital Chungking (Chongqing) that it had at no time raised any doubt about the Chinese sovereignty claim over Tibet. In 1995, US State Department reiterated its position during the hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

 * "The United States considers the Tibet Autonomous Region or TAR (hereinafter referred to as "Tibet") as part of the People's Republic of China. This longstanding policy is consistent with the view of the entire international community, including all China's neighbors: no country recognizes Tibet as a sovereign state. Moreover, U.S. acceptance of China's claim of sovereignty over Tibet predates the establishment of the People's Republic of China. In 1942, we told the Nationalist Chinese government then headquartered in Chongqing (Chungking) that we had "at no time raised (a) question" over Chinese claims to Tibet."

British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden accordingly wrote a note presented to the Chinese government which describes Tibet as, "an autonomous State under the suzerainty of China" that "enjoyed de facto independence." Meanwhile, the British embassy in Washington told the U.S. State Department that, "Tibet is a separate country in full enjoyment of local autonomy, entitled to exchange diplomatic representatives with other powers." Although London repeatedly asked the United States for assistance, the U.S. State Department refuted London's claim:

 * "For its part, the Government of the United States has borne in mind the fact that the Chinese Government has long claimed suzerainty over Tibet and that the Chinese constitution lists Tibet among areas constituting the territory of the Republic of China. This Government has at no time raised a question regarding either of these claims."

Postwar diplomatic efforts

In October, 1945 the Tibetan cabinet and senior clerics prepared a diplomatic mission to India and China. Gifts were prepared and letters congratulating the successful belligerents were carefully drafted. The mission arrived in New Delhi in March, 1946 where gifts and letters were presented to the British viceroy and to the American diplomatic mission. After a delay, perhaps occasioned by British diplomatic reluctance, they proceeded to Nanking where a carefully crafted letter to Chiang Kai-shek was presented which asserted an expansive claim of independence. The Chinese were unresponsive and the delegation left Nanking in March, 1947 without formally acknowledging Chinese sovereignty as the Chinese requested. They were invited to an international conference of Asian countries in India in fall, 1946 and were seated, displayed their national flag and participated in the conference; this conference, however, was not a formal diplomatic event.

The letters to the United States, after long delay, were translated and dispatched to Washington along with a favorable note from U.S. charge dé affairs in New Delhi which stressed the potential strategic importance of Tibet. Washington was having none of that, however, and while encouraging scouting trips to Lhasa if the occasion should arise, deprecated efforts to establish a diplomatic relationship with Tibet.

The trade delegation of 1947-1949
In 1947 the Tibetan foreign office began planning a trade delegation to visit India, China, the United States and Britain. Initial overtures were made to the US embassy in India requesting meetings with President Truman and other US officials to discuss trade. This request was forwarded to Washington, but the State Department proved willing only to meet with the Tibetans on an informal basis. The delegation consisted of 4 persons, Tsepon Shakabpa, Tibet's Chief of the Finance Department, Padatsang, and two others including a monk.

Armed with the first Tibetan passports, the delegation went first to New Delhi, meeting with Prime Minister Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi. Most foreign trade from Tibet passed through India, and it was the practice of the Indian government to convert any foreign currencies received into rupees before payment to Tibet. The Tibetans were unable to negotiate any change in this practice, which would have put hard currency into their hands. One of the goals of the trade delegation was to obtain gold or other solid backing for Tibetan currency.

It was the Chinese position that a Chinese passport was required for entry into China. These were issued, and the delegation entered China at Hong Kong, using them and spent 3 months in China. For the next leg of the journey to the United States and Britain, the Chinese took the position that they would only issue exit visas on the Chinese passports. However the Tibets managed to get a British consular officer in Nanking to issue a British visa on their Tibetan passports, and, again, a US officer in Hong Kong, thus defeating the efforts of the US State Department and the British Foreign Office to deny use of the Tibetan passports, a small victory.

The delegation arrived in San Francisco in July, 1948 where they were met by the British Consul. They traveled by train to Washington where, despite strong objections by the Chinese and reassurance that the United States recognized China's de jure sovereignty over Tibet, the Tibetans were received by the Secretary of State, George Marshall. There was some language in the State Department's negotiations with the Chinese which noted that they exerted no de facto control over Tibet and noted the traditional American principle of favoring self-determination, but no more definite statement was made regarding Tibetan sovereignty.

They requested aid from the United States in convincing India to free up their hard currency earning and also for permission to purchase gold from the United States for a currency reserve. They received no help on their problem with India but were given permission to purchase up to 50,000 ounces of gold.

Not meeting with President Truman, they proceeded to New York where they were greeted by their old friend, Ilya Tolstoy, who introduced them around. They met with Lowell Thomas, who was interested in visiting Tibet, and Dwight Eisenhower, then president of Columbia University, and other eastern establishment personalities as well as Prince Peter of Greece and Denmark who had an interest in Tibet.

In November the delegation set sail for Britain where they spent 3 weeks but were received coolly. Returning through India they were able to free up some foreign exchange for the purchase of gold and, adding money of their own, effected a purchase of $425,800 in gold which was transported to Tibet by pack animals.

Being received more warmly in the United States than in Britain, with whom they had a long established relationship, set the stage for later expansion of the relationship with the United States as they attempted to deal with later Chinese efforts to reassert effective control.

People's Republic of China
Neither the Nationalist government of the Republic of China (and its successor in Taiwan) nor the People's Republic of China have ever renounced China's claim to sovereignty over Tibet. The PRC ascribes Tibetan efforts to establish independence as due to the machinations of "British imperialism" 系统维护_中华人民共和国外交部. According to the Chinese, the Tibetan cabinet, the Kashag, set up a "bureau of foreign affairs" in July, 1942 and demanded that the Chinese mission in Lhasa, the Office of the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission, deal only with it. The Chinese successfully withstood this.

In 1950 the People's Liberation Army entered Tibet, meeting little resistance from the small and ill-equipped Tibetan army. In 1951 the 17 Point Agreement, signed under threat of a wholesale Chinese invasion by representatives of the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama, provided for rule by a joint Chinese-Tibetan authority. This agreement was successfully put into effect in Tibet but in June 1956, rebellion broke out in the Tibetan populated borderlands of Amdo and Kham when the government tried to impose the socialist transformation policies in these regions that they had in other provinces of China. Since Amdo and Kham had not been under the control of Lhasa in 1950 but under the control of Chinese warlords, they were not considered by the Chinese to be part of Tibet and thus not subject to the "go slow" agreement. This unrest provided the opportunity for the CIA to support an armed Tibetan rebellion which eventually spread to Lhasa. The rebellion was crushed by 1959 and the Dalai Lama fled in disguise to India. Isolated actions continued until 1969. The Panchen Lama was set up as a figurehead in Lhasa while the Dalai Lama eventually created a Government of Tibet in Exile.

Annexation of Tibet into the PRC
The Battle of Chamdo in 1950 resulted in a flurry of diplomatic activity as Tibet attempted to negotiate with the Chinese government, appealed futilely to the international community, and then was forced to capitulate.

The eve of the battle
Prior to the Chinese attack on Tibetan army positions in Kham on October 5, 1950, the Tibetan government contacted the Chinese government privately through the Dalai Lama's older brother's father in law and received a reply from China agreeing to meet with the Tibetan delegation in Hong Kong.

title: Foreign relations of Tibet


text:
American British Academy

The ABA Oman International School, earlier known as American British Academy is a private, non-profit, co-educational international school in Muscat, Oman established in September 1987. It offers a K-12 English-language curriculum to expatriate students. ABA is an International Baccalaureate World Continuum School, which enrolls 950 students from pre-kindergarten to grade 12 from more than 75 countries. ABA is the first school in the region to offer the IB programme — PYP, MYP and the IB DP.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: American British Academy


text:
When the Red King Comes

When the Red King Comes is the second album by the Elephant 6 band Elf Power. It is a concept album about the Red King's kingdom. The cover art is taken from a section of an imaginary map called “The Land of Make Believe”, drawn in 1930 by Jaro Hess. A more complete version of the map can be seen in The Writer's Map: An Atlas of Imaginary Lands.

"Needles in the Camels Eyes" is a cover of the Brian Eno song.

Critical reception
Trouser Press wrote that "though still noisy, the improved sound coincides with a sharper focus in the songwriting (that's good) and the first hint of impending mythological obsessions (not so good)." The Chicago Tribune thought that "in Elf Power's hands, psychedelia is a means of transforming personal trauma into a twisted kind of triumph."

AllMusic wrote that "the fuzzy, lo-fi production is an Elephant 6 hallmark, but the unique instrumentation (electric horns, pump organs, even Nepalese percussion) and cryptic, stream-of-consciousness wordplay suggest something altogether different."

Track listing
All songs written by Andrew Rieger unless otherwise noted.
 * 1) "Step Through the Portal..."
 * 2) "...Into the Everlasting Time"
 * 3) "The Frightened Singers"
 * 4) "The Secret Ocean"
 * 5) "The Arrow Flies Close"
 * 6) "Icy Hands Will Never Melt Away"
 * 7) "When the Red King Comes"
 * 8) "The Separating Fault"
 * 9) "Spectators"
 * 10) "Introducing Cosmic Space" (Andrew Rieger, Bryan Helium)
 * 11) "The Bengal Parade"
 * 12) "Needles in the Camels Eyes" (Brian Eno, Phil Manzanera)
 * 13) "...The Silver Lake" (Laura Carter)
 * 14) "It's Been a Million Years"

Personnel

 * Andrew Rieger - guitars, vocals, flute, zanzitophone, keyboards, bass, percussion
 * Laura Carter - keyboards, vocals, Moog synthesizer, zanzithophone, loops
 * Bryan Helium - bass, vocals, guitar, sitar, keyboards
 * Aaron Wegelin - drums, vocals, percussion

title: When the Red King Comes


text:
Staatliches Hofbräuhaus in München

The Staatliches Hofbräuhaus in München (State Brewery in Munich, also Hofbräu München) is a brewery in Munich, Germany, owned by the Bavarian state government. The Hof (court) comes from the brewery's history as a royal brewery in the Kingdom of Bavaria. The brewery owns the Hofbräuhaus am Platzl, the Hofbräukeller and one of the largest tents at the Oktoberfest (Hofbräu-Festzelt).

There are many types of beer brewed using original recipes handed down by Wilhelm V, the Duke of Bavaria. The current beers produced include a Weißbier and Helles, Maibock, Dunkel and Oktoberfest lagers.

The Hofbräuhaus am Platzl in Munich inspired the song "oans, zwoa, g'suffa" (The Bavarian dialect for: "one, two, down the hatch").

History
The Hofbräuhaus am Platzl was founded in 1589 by the Duke of Bavaria, Wilhelm V. It is one of Munich's oldest beer halls. It was founded as the brewery to the old Royal Residence, which at that time was situated just around the corner from where the beer hall stands today. The beer quickly became popular thanks to the first brewer, Heimeran Pongratz, and the "Bavarian Beer Purity Law" of 1516 that stated that only natural ingredients could be used in the brewing process.

Maximilian I, Wilhelm's son and heir, did not care much for the Braunbier, which was the dark and heavy brown beer. So, in the beginning of the 17th century Maximilian I turned the brewery's focus onto wheat beers and forbade all other private breweries to brew wheat beer, thus creating a monopoly. In 1612, Heimeran Pongraz's successor, Elias Pichler, was under pressure to brew a stronger beer, hence the Maibock. In fact, the Maibock beer became so famous that it once saved the city from annihilation. When King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden invaded Bavaria during the Thirty Years' War in 1632, he threatened to sack and burn the entire city of Munich. He agreed to leave the city in peace if the citizens surrendered some hostages, and 600,000 barrels of Hofbräuhaus beer. In 1852, King Maximilian II transferred ownership of the brewery to the Kingdom of Bavaria.

Adolf Hitler announced the official program of the Nazi Party to a meeting of around 2,000 people at the Hofbräuhaus on 24 February 1920. At the time, he was propaganda chief of the party whilst the organisation was still relatively small. On 29 July 1921, he was elected Führer of the Nazi Party during a meeting at the Hofbräuhaus am Platzl.

Franchises
After World War II, thanks in part to legions of American soldiers stationed in Munich bringing home beer mugs with the "HB" logo, the Hofbräuhaus quickly became a major tourist attraction in Munich. Demand for Hofbräuhäuser in other parts of the world began almost immediately. The first Hofbräuhaus in Europe outside Germany was opened in Genoa, Italy, see Hofbräuhaus Genova.

In 1968, Helmut Meyer opened the first Hofbräuhaus outside of Europe, in Market Lane, Melbourne, Australia, where it still operates today. The complex includes Alpine Bar and Bier Hall.

Since October 2005, there has been a Hofbräuhaus in Hamburg, Germany. In October 2008, a Hofbräuhaus in Bremen opened. There are also Hofbräuhäuser in other German cities including Berlin.

Hofbräuhaus franchises have opened in several places around the United States. Newport, Kentucky (Greater Cincinnati, Ohio) in April 2003, Las Vegas, Nevada, in January 2004, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in March 2009, Chicago, Illinois in January 2013, Cleveland, Ohio in October 2014 and Columbus, Ohio in November 2014. A franchise opened in Buffalo, New York in September 2020. A franchise had operated in St. Petersburg, Florida from September 2015 until March 2020. There is also a chain of Hofbräu Beer Gardens in Miami, Florida, Panama City Beach, Florida, New York, New York, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin which provide the traditional food and but do not brew their own Hofbräuhaus beer, only serve it.

The first Hofbräuhaus in Latin America was opened in Belo Horizonte, Brazil in November 2015.

The Marriott International in Dubai has licensed the brand and has opened a restaurant in their hotel. The Hofbräuhaus Seoul was the first Hofbräuhaus in Asia. There was also a franchise at the Don Mueang International Airport in Bangkok.

title: Staatliches Hofbräuhaus in München


text:
Ikara (missile)

The Ikara missile was an Australian ship-launched anti-submarine missile, named after an Australian Aboriginal word for "throwing stick". It launched an acoustic torpedo to a range of 10 nmi, allowing fast-reaction attacks against submarines at ranges that would otherwise require the launching ship to close for attack, placing itself at risk. By flying to a distant target, the engagement time was dramatically shorter than provided by short-range weapons, giving the target less time to respond.

Design and development
With the development of nuclear power, submarine performance, especially speed, improved dramatically, as did the threat they posed. Simultaneously, sonar detection capability at long range was also improving significantly, but only short-range weapons were available to surface escort warships. The final British development of the A/S mortar was the Limbo mortar, able to fire in all directions but limited to a maximum range of 914 m.

Known initially under the Rainbow Code name Blue Duck, the Ikara was a "rocket-thrown weapon" with similarities to the French Malafon. It differed from Malafon in that the torpedo was semi-recessed in the missile body rather than mounted in the nose. Ikara's range at 10 nmi was double that of ASROC. Ikara was generally considered a superior system to ASROC as it was accurately guided during flight to ensure optimal targeting. A submarine would be aware from sonar contacts that it was about to be attacked and could engage in evasive changes of course. In ASROC's flight time to maximum range of 55 seconds, a submarine travelling at 25 kn could move 700 m from its position at launch, and a prediction would be made of the submarine's likely position at torpedo splashdown. But during the design of Ikara around 1960 the range of the acoustic seeker of the Mk.44 torpedo was limited to 457 m, and consequently its kill probability was low. The range of the acoustic seeker was later improved.

Ikara was guided by radio command link until it reached the vicinity of the submarine, determined by the ship's sonar contact, where it would first jettison the rear ventral fin and torpedo rear covering and then release its 12.7 inch Mark 44 or Mark 46 acoustically-guided anti-submarine torpedo. The torpedo payload would descend by parachute while the missile itself was programmed to splashdown some distance away to avoid interference with the acoustic torpedo's seeker head. The torpedo would then begin a circular search pattern to find and lock onto a submarine contact.

Ikara was powered by a two-stage in-line solid-fuel Murawa rocket engine developed by Bristol Aerojet Ltd in the UK.

The Turana target drone was designed and built in Australia as a development of the Ikara anti-submarine weapon system. It was a target drone with remote control that was launched from the Ikara launcher for use in naval anti-aircraft target practice.

In 1982, work began on an improved version, the Super Ikara. This was to be turbojet-powered to give a maximum range of 100 km, and would be carried in, and launched from a container. While test launches were carried out in 1986, the project was abandoned due to a lack of interest from the UK.

British variant differences
A variant fitted to the British Royal Navy's Leander-class frigates differed in several respects from the original Australian version designed to operate in the Pacific. The Royal Navy required changes to the frequencies used in order to enable Ikara to be used in the NATO area, where different electronic warfare conditions and international frequency agreements had to be taken into account. Neither the Australian-built analogue computer system, nor the American Bunker Ramo Corporation 133 digital computer system, used in most RAN systems, were compatible with the ADA digital battle-control computers being fitted into Royal Navy ships, and this was also changed. The UK-manufactured version of the Mark 44 torpedo also differed from the US-built version purchased by the Australians for their Ikara missiles. The British also required the missile payload to be changeable aboard ship to permit different payload combinations to be used, including a nuclear depth bomb (NDB) option, and this, together with the different internal ship layouts required further changes to the missile, storage and handling arrangements. The Australian practice was to combine the missile and payload at a shore-based ordnance facility and issuing the complete unit to a ship; repair or maintenance was only possible ashore. In the British ships, the changes made enabled a faulty torpedo on a missile in working order to be replaced, increasing the flexibility of use of very limited stocks aboard; especially on lengthy deployments around the globe, as was more common with British ships than their Australian counterparts. The facility to change a torpedo payload aboard ship also permitted a change from a conventional torpedo to a WE.177A NDB, a facility for a nuclear option that was not needed on ships fitted with the Australian variant of Ikara. The British launcher also differed, covered by a zareba (breakwater) when not in use to prevent icing in northern waters, and extremely accurate in training in bearing. It was also notoriously noisy.

Ikara-fitted ships
Ikara was fitted to all of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) River-class destroyer escort frigates/destroyer escorts and Perth-class destroyer guided-missile destroyers. There were three main variants of the system fitted to RAN ships; F1, F2, and F3. The F1 system, using an analogue computer, a single launcher and without a data link, was fitted to HMA Ships HMAS Stuart (DE 48) and HMAS Derwent (DE 49) only. The F3 system, with a digital computer, digital display, single launcher and a digital data link, was fitted to the other four River class ships. HMAS Stuart and Derwent were fitted with F3/0 systems during Half-life refits during the 1980s. The F2 system, using a digital computer, digital display, two launchers and with a digital data link, was fitted to the three Perth-class destroyers. The digital computer used by the RAN was the AN/UYK-1 NTDS (Naval Tactical Data System) (Bunker Ramo 133). The Ikara missile was withdrawn from service by the RAN in 1991.

Ikara was also operated by the Brazilian Navy, Royal Navy, and Royal New Zealand Navy. It was phased out in the early 1990s due to the obsolescence of the Mk 44 torpedo and inability to carry the newer and heavier Mk 46 or Stingray. The British purchased Ikara to fit to the two new CVA-01 aircraft carriers planned (and later cancelled) in the 1960s, and their escorts, the Type 82 destroyers, of which only one, HMS Bristol (D23) was built. With the cancellation of the remaining escorts, the British were left with purchased Ikara missiles in storage, and opted to fit them into eight existing Batch 1 Leander-class frigates in need of modernisation: HM ships HMS Ajax (F114), HMS Arethusa (F38), HMS Aurora (F10), HMS Dido (F104), HMS Euryalus (F15), HMS Galatea (F18), HMS Leander (F109) and HMS Naiad (F39).

Former operators

 * Royal Australian Navy
 * Brazilian Navy
 * 🇨🇱 Chile
 * Chilean Navy
 * Royal New Zealand Navy
 * Royal Navy
 * Royal New Zealand Navy
 * Royal Navy
 * Royal Navy
 * Royal Navy

title: Ikara (missile)


text:
Dean of St Paul's

The dean of St Paul's is a member of, and chair of the Chapter of St Paul's Cathedral in London in the Church of England. The dean of St Paul's is also ex officio dean of the Order of the British Empire.

The current dean is Andrew Tremlett, who was installed on 25 September 2022.

High Medieval

 * 1090–1107 Wulman
 * 1107–1111 Ranulf Flambard (disputed)
 * 1111–1138 William de Mareni
 * 1138–1157 Ralph de Langford
 * 1158–1180 Hugh de Mareni
 * 1180–1199 Ralph de Diceto
 * 1200–1216 Alard de Burnham
 * 1216–1218 Gervase de Howbridge
 * 1218–1227 Robert de Watford
 * 1228–1231 Martin de Pattishall
 * 1231–1241 Geoffrey de Lucy
 * 1241–1243 William of Sainte-Mère-Eglise
 * 1243–1253 Henry de Cornhill
 * 1253–1257 Walter de Saleron
 * 1257–1260 Robert de Barton
 * 1260–1261 Peter de Newport
 * January 1262–July 1262 Richard Talbot
 * July 1262 – 1263 John de Ebulo
 * 1263–1267 Geoffrey de Fering
 * 1268–1273 John Chishull
 * 1273–1276 Hervey de Boreham
 * 1276–1283 Thomas Ingoldsthorpe
 * 1283–1285 Roger de La Legh
 * 1285–1294 William de Montfort
 * 1294–1306 Ralph Baldock

Late Medieval

 * 1306–1313 Arnald Frangerius de Cantilupo
 * 1314–1316 John Sandale
 * 1316–1317 Richard Newport
 * 1317 Roger de Northburgh
 * 1317–1322 Vitalis de Testa
 * 1322–1335 John de Everdon
 * 1335–1354 Gilbert de Bruera
 * 1354–1361 Richard de Kilvington
 * 1361–1362 Walter de Alderbury
 * 1362–1364 Thomas Trilleck
 * 1364–1389 John de Appleby
 * 1389–1400 Thomas de Eure
 * 1400–1405 Thomas Stowe
 * 1406–1421 Thomas More
 * 1422–1441 Reginald Kentwood
 * 1441–1456 Thomas Lisieux
 * 1456–1457 Laurence Booth
 * 1457–1468 William Say
 * 1468–1471 Roger Radclyffe
 * 1471–1478 Thomas Wynterbourne
 * 1479–1499 William Worsley

Early modern

 * 1499–1505 Robert Sherborne
 * 1505–1519 John Colet
 * 1519–1536 Richard Pace
 * 1536–1540 Richard Sampson
 * 1540–1545 John Incent
 * 1545–1554 William May
 * 1554–1556 John Feckenham
 * 1556–1559 Henry Cole
 * 1559–1560 William May (again)

title: Dean of St Paul's


text:
User talk:Pusher

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Introduction to contentious topics - gender and sexuality, biographies of living or recently deceased people
You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pusher


text:
User:MarkS

Search user languages

I live in Hampshire, UK

I work in pensions so I am trying to share some of that knowledge where suitable.

Things I might be doing at the moment
I currently looking at the following:

 * Geographic coordinates - these look genuinely useful and a different way to access information on wikipedia.
 * Vandal fighting I might be using Lupin's anti-vandal, VandalProof and popups./

Extra Edit Buttons
Details of Extra Edit Buttons can be found on the sub-page User:MarkS/Extra_edit_buttons. For other tools see Tools/Editing_tools.

Subpages

 * /election
 * /templates - templates I tend to use

Wiki Links

 * Main Page
 * Community_Portal
 * Recent Changes
 * Uncategorized pages
 * Dead end pages or Deadend_pages
 * Featured Article Candidate
 * WikiGnome
 * WP:AFD

Useful tools

 * Category search

Wiki Syntax

 * EasyTimeline Syntax

Sockpuppets

 * MarkS2 - used to view pages on a Netgem box using a heavily modified monobook.css

Significant Contributions
Links hidden

 * Actuarial notation
 * Christopher Daykin
 * Government Actuary's Department
 * Minimum funding requirement
 * Pensions Act 1995
 * State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme
 * 1930 British Empire Games - Event medal tables
 * 1934 British Empire Games - Event medal tables
 * 1938 British Empire Games - Event medal tables
 * 1950 British Empire Games - Event medal tables
 * 1954 British Empire and Commonwealth Games - Event medal tables
 * 1958 British Empire and Commonwealth Games - Event medal tables
 * 1962 British Empire and Commonwealth Games - Event medal tables
 * 1966 British Empire and Commonwealth Games - Event medal tables

Edit Count
I use to count my edits but don't anymore. Some might say this is because I do not make that many edits and I have spells of "time off" from Wikipedia. However, three weeks preparing the medal tables for the Commonwealth games which resulted in few edits but a lot of information convinced me it is quality not quantity.

Wikilinks

 * Travel MarkS

I also have some accounts on Wikipedia in other languages. I set these up for two reasons: (1) So if I do contribute they go under my username (and not by IP) and (2) To protect my username. Contributions on other languages are likely to be limited to ensuring consistency with the English wikipeida, adding inter wiki links or adding geographic coordiantes.

French - MarkS

Simple - MarkS

German - SMark - note: There is a german user with the username MarkS, this is not me.

Cornish - MarkS

Scots - MarkS

Esperanto - MarkS

Dutch - MarkS

de:User:SMark fr:User:MarkS simple:User:MarkS kw:User:MarkS sco:User:MarkS eo:User:MarkS nl:User:MarkS

title: User:MarkS


text:
Talk:University of California, Santa Cruz

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on University of California, Santa Cruz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~es10/fieldtripUCSC/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~es10/fieldtripUCSC/cave.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070503011214/http://uarc.ucsc.edu/ to http://uarc.ucsc.edu/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://oxucsc.com/history.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://admissions.sa.ucsc.edu/discover/faq/studentlife.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

US Rankings
please update all University of California and California State University rankings. This years rankings are at the us ranking page. https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges

Description of AAU in lede
An unregistered editor is insisting that the lede of this article include a description of the Association of American Universities, namely that it's "a prestigious alliance of research universities in the United States and Canada." This off-topic, unnecessary, and promotional; readers who want to learn more about the organization are welcome to click on the link we helpfully provide to the organization's article. ElKevbo (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Section on 2024 campus protests
missing a section for the 2024 protests Nithin🚀 talk 22:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse.   ElKevbo (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)