VIETNAM JOURNAL- Development of Agriculture

April 7, 1973 ever, two important differences in the situation which have to be taken into account. For one thing, China was rather a passive actor in the nineteenth century developments. It had little option hut to watch helplessly the various moves and counter-moves in and about Tibet. All that China succeeded in doing was that Britain did hot recognise Tibet as an independent sovereign state. The British did concede Chinese suzerainty over Tibet. One does not know whether this typical Anglo-Saxon exercise of distinguishing between sovereignty and suzerainty made any sense to the Chinese. The Chinese, in any case, seemed to have ignored it and continued claiming full sovereignty over Tibet. Secondly, the two powers between which Tibet was a buffer were great imperial powers, Russia and Britain. China, on the other hand, was a weak power. The imperial dynasty of China was already in its death throes. The picture would have been radically different if a strong central authority had existed in China.