阁下：
请允许我向联合国和阁下表达我对在联合国主持下在刚果所做的伟大工作的热情感佩。
2，请参阅我写于1959年9月9日的信，您曾亲自圈阅并注释为2033号，以及我于1960年9月2日致阁下的信。
3，很高兴得知西藏问题已被列入联合国大会今年的马来亚和泰国议程，对此，我深为感谢。希望所有爱好和平的国家，都能倾听我的人民的声音，并在他们经历被征服和被压迫的黑夜里，提供一线光明。
4，很高兴地注意到，1960年9月24日，赫鲁晓夫在大会发言时，为所有殖民地人民呼吁自由。而我的国家，正不幸地沦为了殖民地。我希望苏联也将利用其强有力的声音，与其他国家一道，支持恢复我国的自由。
5，我声明，早于1911 - 12年之前，中国在西藏没有丝毫主权象征。然而，我无需为此申诉而详述有关历史事实。
6，无论西藏在1911——12年之前的地位如何，从第十三世达赖喇嘛昭告西藏独立起，即入侵的中国军队被赶出西藏之后，西藏不仅在事实上，就是在法理上也是独立的。
7，1913年，西藏政府与蒙古政府签订了条约。这是在达赖喇嘛的授权下进行的。该条约宣布，西藏和蒙古相互承认其为独立国家。
8，为了处理悬而未决的问题，西藏同意参加1913年在西姆拉召开的三国讨论会。与会的有英国政府、中国政府和西藏政府。每位全权代表都代表其政府。这从缔约方代表签署的条约[1]草案中，清楚地呈现了出来。
9，在印度政府发布的第11号白皮书（第38页）中，也强调了这一事实：“注：1959年9月至11月印度政府和中国政府之间交换了备忘录和信函”。1960年2月12日，在印度政府发布的第III号白皮书（第94,95页）中，进一步强调了这一点。。
10，虽然中国政府的代表在条约[2]草案上签了字，但中国政府最终于1914年7月3日退出，在条约上签字的是英国全权代表和西藏国家元首达赖喇嘛的代表。同时，鉴于中国政府拒绝签字，英国和西藏的全权代表共同签署了以下声明：
11，“我们，英国和西藏政府的全权代表，特此作出以下声明，英国政府和西藏政府承认条约的约束力生效，由于中国政府没有在条约上正式签字，因此，条约所赋于中国政府所有优惠一律无效。我们以英文和藏文一式两份声明上签字盖章。
12，“为此，我们签署并盖章了这份声明，英文和藏文，各一式两份。
13，“于1914年7月3日在西姆拉签定，相当于西藏历- 木虎年第五个月的第十天。
英国全权代表: 享利. 麦克马洪 （盖章）
英国全权代表（盖章）
达赖喇嘛（盖章）
伦钦夏札（盖章）
哲蚌寺（盖章）
色拉寺（盖章）
甘丹寺（盖章）
西藏国民大会（盖章）”
14，中国政府从未遵守过条约[3]的规定，也从未在条约中获得过任何优惠。
15，1926年，西藏作为边境委员会成员国之一，出席了由英国和特赫里（Tehri）以及西藏三方代表在尼朗（Nilang）的会晤[4]。
16，1912年—1950年，中国在西藏甚至连象征性的权力都没有。 1934年，一个对达赖喇嘛圆寂表示哀悼的中国代表团抵达西藏，请求允许像尼泊尔和印度政府的代表一样，继续留在西藏。
17，1936年以后，中国驻拉萨代表团的官员曾多次经印度前往西藏，无论批准或拒绝这个过境签证，印度政府都首先咨询了西藏政府的意见。
18，就是这样的一个中国代表团，也于1949年被驱逐西藏。
19，西藏没有参与中日战争。在第二次世界大战期间，西藏坚持了中立，甚至没有允许将战争物资从印度经由西藏运往中国。
20，中国人声称西藏代表参加了1946年的立宪会议，并且，还在1948年参加了中国国民议会。这种说法是完全错误的。当时前往中国的代表团团长札萨凯墨.索朗旺堆说：“1946年，西藏政府派出一个由札萨绒伯伦. 土登桑培和我自己带着助手组成的慰问团，前去问候获胜的英国、美国和国民党政府；我们经加尔各答前往新德里，并通过其大使向英国和美国致以问候，从那里，我们乘飞机前往南京问候。
由于染病和需要医疗的原因，我们在那里停留了几个月。而后参观了几个省份，返回南京时，那里正在召开一个大会。我们参加那个大会的目的，是想了解都有哪些康巴和西藏人，伪装西藏代表前去参加大会，但是我们没有承认或签署当时制定的新宪法。
至于1948年，我们在南京的使命是Khandon Losum，虽然也出席了中国的大会，但并不是作为拉萨的特别代表而是以访客的身份出席，与前次一样，我们并没有承认或签署大会的决议。
21，1947年印度独立后，在与西藏政府联络时，印度政府答复如下：
“在没有签属新的条约之前，印度政府欢迎，任何问题，只要西藏政府没有异议，双方即可保持现有的关系，并接受英印政府时期所签属的各项条约。”
22，从1912年—1951年5月23日《十七条协议》签定之前，西藏一直在没有任何外部权力的干涉下，自己处理外交事物。在1946年和1948年，西藏代表团访问了不少国家，拿的是西藏护照。
23，负责英国，后来又负责印度驻拉萨代表团的休·理查森（Mr. H. E. Richardson）先生，向国际法学家委员会组成的西藏法律调查委员会表示......“1936年以后，负责英国，后来又负责印度驻拉萨的的官员的主要职责是，处理他们的政府与西藏政府之间的外交事物。”（摘自《西藏和中华人民共和国》之报告第146页）。
24, 上述事实足以表明西藏是完全独立的。 但是，去年对我的国家的地位提出了疑问，因此以下事实，可以说明（西藏的国家地位）：
25, 埃里克·泰克曼爵士[5]在关于“中国事务”中写道：“自从（1912年）以来，在拉萨[6]统治西藏时，根本没有幸存的中国权力的痕迹。二十多年来，他[7]作为无可争议的独立西藏的统治者，维护了国内的和平与秩序，并与印度政府保持着密切关系。”
26，1928年，查尔斯·贝尔爵士[8]在《西藏人民》中指出，中国权力在西藏已经停止。
27，1947年驻西藏的Amaury de Riencourt[9]先生说，“作为一个独立的国家，西藏在方方面面管理着自己。”并且，他说：“政府的指令随处可见”。
28，中国驻拉萨使团成员沈宗濂和柳升祺[10]，说：“自从1911年以来，拉萨所有现实的目的就是享受完全的独立。” 为了支持这一点，他们提到西藏有自己的货币和习俗，自己的电报和邮政服务，以及不同于中国的政行管理机构和自己的军队。
29，1950年，在审议萨尔瓦多关于将西藏被入侵之问题列入（联合国）大会议程的建议时，印度纳瓦那加尔省的省长，也是当时的印度代表表示，他的政府已经仔细研究了萨尔瓦多提议的将中国入侵西藏问题列入联合国的议程。这对中国和印度都至关重要。 委员会意识到，印度作为中国和西藏的邻国，与两国都有友好关系，因此，也是最有兴趣解决这个问题的国家。 这也是为什么，印度政府特别担心是否能够得到和平解决。 （A / BUR / SR.73，第19页）
30，关于中国对西藏拥有宗主权的说法，基于1907年的《英俄条约》。 但需要指出的是，西藏不是该条约的缔约国，也不该受这个条约的约束。
31，作为西藏政府的首脑，我宣布，1950年10月7日发生的事件，是中国对我国的公然侵略行为。
32，西藏政府呼吁联合国提供帮助。 因为西藏军队的失败，还有西藏政府努力寻求联合国帮助的失败，我们不得不派出代表团去北京。 而这个代表团被迫于1951年5月23日签署了所谓的《十七条协议》。
33，从那时起，直到1959年3月我离开西藏，所发生的众所周知的事件，已无需任何详细叙述。 即使现在，几乎每天都有（西藏）难民进入尼泊尔、不丹、锡金和印度。 难民人数已达43,500人。从这些难民的诉说看，我在去年和今年给你的信中提到的压迫和大规模的恐怖行动，绝不会减少。
34，在这方面，我可以提请联合国关注国际法学家委员会出版的关于西藏问题的出色报告。在他们的第二份报告中，这个密切审查西藏问题的杰出的委员会得出结论，除其他外，中国当局在《灭绝种族罪公约》[11]的部分意义上，犯有种族灭绝罪。 我相信联合国将仔细审查这一结论所依据的事实，并将采取适当措施。种族灭绝，也是违反国际法的罪行。
36，反对侵略者和压迫者的战斗仍在西藏继续着。 去年，我向联合国提出申诉，现在，我再次提出申诉，希望联合国采取适当措施，使中国撤出侵略。否则，在我看来，对我的国家不会有太大的帮助，而强大的共产主义势力，每一天都在摧毁我的人民的自由。
37，请阁下将这个申诉提交联合国。
达赖喇嘛
注释 （由译者編加）
[4]请参阅Claude Prpi ：History of the dispute between Tehri State and Tibet A Himalayan Case（特赫里州与西藏之间争端的历史——喜马拉雅史例）
[8]查尔斯·贝尔爵士：英文名：Sir Charles Bell, 为不丹、锡金和西藏的英国政治官员。英属印度驻西藏大使。著有《十三世达赖喇嘛转》（Portrait of a Dalai Lama –The Life and Times of The Great Thirteenth), 《西藏人民》（The People of Tibet).
[9]Amaury de Riencour：法国历史学家，东南亚专家，汉学家，藏学家，印度学家。1947年访问西藏，并留驻在拉萨五个月。
原英文：
Your Excellency:
May I convey to the United Nations and to your excellency my warm appreciation of the great work which ha been and is being done in Congo under the auspices of the U.N
2, Kindly refer to my letter of September 9, 1959,circulted by you as Note No,2033, and also to my letter to Your Excellency of September 2, 1960.
3, I am happy to learn that the Question of Tibet has been inscribed on the agenda of the U.N. Assembly for this year at the instance of Malaya and Thailand to whom i am deeply grateful. I do hope that all the peaceloving countries will take heed of the voice of my people and provide for them a ray of light in the night of subjugation and oppression through which they are passing.
4, I am happy to note that in his speech in the Assembly on September 24, 1964, H.E.N.Khrushchev called for the freedom of all colonial peoples. Unfortunately my country has been reduced to the status of a colonial country, and i hope that along with other countries the USSR will also raise its powerful voice in support of the restoration of freedom to my country.
5, I assert that long before 1911-12 there was no vestige of Chinese authority in Tibet, but it is not necessary for me to examine the historical aspect of this question for the purposes of this appeal.
6, Whatever the position of Tibet may have been prior to 1911-12, in any event, from the day that the Thirteenth Dalai Lama Proclaimed the independence of Tibet, after the invading Chinese armies had been driven out of Tibet, Tibet was not only independent de facto but de jure.
7, In 1913 the Tibetan Government entered into a treaty with the Government of Mongolia. This entreaty was entered into under the authority of the Dalai Lama. By this treaty Tibet and Mongolia declared that they recognized each other as independent countries.
8, With a view to settle some outstanding agreed to enter into tripartite discussions which commenced in 1913, at Simla. The parties to the discussion were the British Government, Chinese Government, and Tibetan Government. The representative of each government being a plenipotentiary on behalf of his government. This appears clearly from the text of the Convention which was initialed by the representatives of all the parties.
9, This fact is also emphasized by the White Paper No.11 issued by the Government of India (page 38) entitled "Notes, Memoranda, and Letters Exchanged between the Governments of India and China, September-November, 1959." This has been further emphasized in the note of the Government of India dated February 12, 1960(pp.94, 95) in the White Paper No. III issued by the Government of India.
10, Although the text of the Convention was initiated by the representative of the Chinese Government, the Chinese Government backed out and ultimately on the third of July, 1914, the signatures on behalf of the Dalai Lama, in his capacity as the head of the Tibetan State, and the British plenipotentiary were appended. At the same time the plenipotentiaries of Great Britain and Tibet, in view of the refusal of the Chinese Government, signed the following Declaration:
11, "We the plenipotentiaries of Great Britain and Tibet, hereby record the following declaration to the effect that we acknowledge the annexed Convention as initialed to be binding on the governments of Great Britain and Tibet, and we agree that so long as the Government of China withholds signature to the aforesaid Convention, she will be debarred from the enjoyment of all privileges accruing therefrom.
12, “In token whereof we have signed and sealed this declaration, two copies in English and two in Tibetan.
13, “Done at Simla this third day of July, A.D 1914, corresponding with the Tibetan date- the tenth day of the fifth month of the Wood Tiger Year.
A. Henry McMahon
British Plenipotentiary
(Seal of the British Plenipotentiary)
(Seal of the Dalai Lama)
(Seal of the Lonchen Shatra) (Signature of the Lonchen Shatra)
(Seal of the Drepung Monastery)
(Seal of the Sera Monastery)
(Seal of the Gaden Monastery)
(Seal of the National Assembly)"
14, The Chinese Government, never having adhered to terms of the Convention, never become entitled to any of the advantages which they may have derived from the terms of the Convention.
15, In 1926 Tibet was represented at a Boundary Commission consisting of the representatives of Tibet, Tehri, and Great Britain which met at Nilang.
16, Between 1912 and 1950 there was not even a semblance of Chinese authority in Tibet. There was a Chinese mission in Tibet which arrived in 1934 to offer condolences on the death of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama. This Mission was permitted to continue to stay in Tibet on the same footing as the missions from Nepal and from the Government of India.
17, On numerous occasions after 1936 the officers of the Chinese mission to Lhasa used to travel via India to Tibet. On every occasion the Indian Government granted or refused transit visas after consulting the wishes of the Government of Tibet.
18, In 1949 even this mission was expelled from Tibet.
19, Tibet was not a party of the Sino-Japanese war, and even during the Second World War Tibet insisted on its position as a neutral and did not permit the transport of war material from India to China.
20, The Chinese claim that Tibetan delegates participated in the Constituent Assembly in 1946 and that they also sat in the Chinese National Assembly in 1948. This claim is absolutely false. Dzasak Khemey Sonam Wangdo, who was the leader of Delegation which went to China says, "In 1946 the Tibetan Government had sent a good will Mission headed by Dzasak Rongpel-Ihun, Thubten Samphel and myself Dzasak Khemey Sonam Wangdo with assistants to offer victorious greetings to Britain, America, and the Kuomintang Government; we traveled via Calcutta to New Delhi, and offered the greetings to Britain and America through their Ambassadors; from there we went by air to Nanking and offered greetings. Due to illness and medical treatment we remained there for a few months. Then we toured several provinces and on our return to Nanking they were having their big assembly. We attended the assembly in order to study the behavior of the Khamba and other Tibetan emigrants who attended the assembly as pretended Tibetan representatives. But we did not recognize or sign the new constitutional law (shenfa) which was then make.
As for 1948, our mission in Nanking, namely the Khandon Losum, also attended the Chinese Assembly as visitors but no special representative was deputed from Lhasa, and they similarly did not recognize or sign the resolutions of the assembly.
21, In 1947 after India became independent, in reply to a communication from the Tibetan Government, the Government of India replied as follows:
"The Government of India would be glad to have an assurance that it is the intention of the Tibetan Government to continue relations on the existing basis until new agreements are reached on matters that either party may wish to take up. This is the procedure adopted by all other countries with which India has inherited treaty relations from His Majesty's Government."
22, Between 1912 and till the Seventeen-Point Agreement was signed on May 23, 1951, Tibet continued to conduct its foreign affairs without reference to any outside authority. Tibetan delegations in 1946 and 1948 traveled extensively on Tibetan passports.
23, Mr. H. E. Richardson, who in charge of the British and later Indian Mission at Lhasa, stated to the Legal Inquiry Committee on Tibet, constituted by the International Commission of jurists that, ..."the duties of the Officer in Charge of the British and later Indian Mission at Lhasa after 1936 were principally to conduct the diplomatic business of his Government with the Tibetan Government"(page 146 of the report entitled "Tibet and the Chinese Peoples Republic").
24, The foregoing facts should suffice to show that Tibet was completely independent. Since, however, doubts were raised last year regarding the status of my country, the following facts may be usefully stated:
25, Sir Eric Teichmann in Affairs of China wrote: "Since (1912) no vestige of Chinese authority has survived or reappeared in Lhasa-ruled Tibet. In more than twenty years he (the Thirteenth Dalai Lama) ruled as undisputed master of autonomous Tibet, preserving internal peace and order and maintaining close and intimate relations with the Indian Government."
26, In 1928 Sir Charles Bell in The people of Tibet pointed out that Chinese authority in Tibet had ceased.
27, M. Amaury de Riencourt who was in Tibet in 1947, states, "Tibet ruled itself in all respects as an independent nation. " He goes on to say that "Government's writ ran everywhere."
28, Tsung lien-shen and Shen Chi-liu who were both members of the Chinese Mission in Lhasa, say, "Since 1911 Lhasa has to all practical purposes enjoyed full independence." In support of this they mention that Tibet had its own currency and customs, its own telegraph and postal service, and its own civil service different from that of China, and its own army.
29, In 1950 when the proposal of EI Salvador to place the question of the invasion of Tibet on the agenda of General Assembly was being considered, the Jam Saheb of Nawanagar, the representative of India said his government had given careful study to the problems raised by the proposal of EI Salvador to place the question of the invasion of Tibet by foreign forces on the General Assembly agenda. That was a matter of vital interest to both China and India. The Committee was aware that India, as a neighbor of both China and Tibet, with both of which it had friendly relations, was the country most interested in a settlement of the problem. That was why the Indian government was particularly anxious that it should be settled peacefully. (A/BUR/SR. 73, page 19)
30, The claim of the Chinese to suzerainty over Tibet is based on the 1907 Convention between Great Britain and Russia. It may be pointed out that Tibet was not a party to that Convention and was in no way bound by that Convention.
31，As the head of the Tibet Government I say that what happened on October 7, 1950, was a flagrant act of aggression on the part of China against my country.
32, The Tibetan government appealed to the United Nations for help. As a result of the defeat of the Tibetan army, and after the efforts of the Tibetan government to get the help of the United Nations had failed, we were compelled to send a delegation of Peking. The delegation was compelled to sign what is known as the Seventeen-Point Agreement on May 23, 1951.
33, The events since then and till my departure from Tibet in March, 1959, are too well known to require any detailed recounting. Even now refugees are coming into Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, and India practically every day. The number of the refugees is 43, 500. From the accounts of these refugees, the oppression and wholesale terror, to which I referred in my letter to you last year and also this year, have in no way lessened.
34, In this connection may I draw the attention of the United Nations to the excellent reports on the question of Tibet published by the International Commission of Jurists. In the second report, the distinguished Committee that closely examined the question came to the conclusion, inter alia, that Chinese authorities had been guilty of genocide within the meaning of the Genocide Convention. I trust that the United Nations will carefully examine the facts on which this conclusion is based and will take appropriate action to deal with this matter. Genocide, even apart from the Genocide Convention, has been recognized as a crime against International Law.
35,As a result of a wholesale breach of all the important terms of the Seventeen-Point Agreement, the General Assembly (consisting of officials and public, mainly the public) repudiated that Agreement, as it was well entitled to do, and reasserted the independence of Tibet on March10, 1959.
36,The fighting in Tibet against the occupiers and the oppressors is still going on. I appealed to the United Nations last year, and I am making this appeal again in the hope that the United Nations will take appropriate measures to get China to vacate its aggression. In my opinion, any measure short of this is not going to be of much help to my country where the Communist steamroller is every day crushing out the freedom of my people.
37,May I request Your Excellency to place this Appeal before the United Nations.
The Dalai Lama
