> I'm not really referring to private individuals here. I'm referring to organizations that matter, like countries, the UN, etc. Individuals can have whatever opinion they'd like, but there's no question at all in the international arena about whether Tibet is part of China.
If you go looking for UN views on whether Tibet is "part of" China, you will find plenty of dissent in various UN working groups and such, and if you read into the subtlety of diplomats working on the things that actually matter, you'll find people avoid saying one way or another because the things that matter don't involve the silly concept "part of", and because China freaks out uncooperatively if anyone mentions it, so it's better for dealing with real issues for people to avoid mentioning it. Even if they think it.
If you only look at formal views, via resolutions and such, I argue (as do many) those are just part of the diplomatic machinery. They don't define truth, or say what people actually think.
> that question doesn't impact whether Hong Kong is part of China.
I argue that whether Hong Kong is "part of" China is irrelevant to the question of whether China has (or had) ambitions to spread its systems over more people than before.
But since you bring up legal sovereignty, the question of whether China has the legal right to control the Hong Kong people in the way that it does, against their will and achieving it by dishonour and deception, is not as clear cut as you make out. The treaty being associated with the handover certainly has bearing on that. China broke international law in Hong Kong (not that international law is enforcible of course), and the very concept of legal sovereignty is founded on international agreements. If you don't honour agreements upon which the concept is founded, words like "legal sovereignty" don't mean anything anyway.
> to which the People's Republic considers itself the successor
Which again is about legal and political claims and such, and therefore irrelevant to the question of whether China desires to spread its present day political and social systems to more people.
Indeed, "considers itself the successor" implies that it does want to spread its systems to more people that don't want them.
I'm sorry, but virtually every government on Earth recognizes Tibet as part of China.
This is about as ambiguous as American sovereignty over Hawaii. Yes, there are private individuals who question it, but that is not the position taken by any government or major international institution that I'm aware of.
As for "subtle" statements, the US, UK and many other countries have made very unsubtle, definitive statements that they recognize Chinese sovereignty over Tibet.
> If you don't honour agreements upon which the concept is founded, words like "legal sovereignty" don't mean anything anyway.
Countries violate their treaty obligations all the time. Sovereignty is sacrosanct, and not something a country loses because it doesn't fulfil the conditions of one or another treaty. Britain can complain about China's treaty violations, and it can even take reciprocal actions (and it has), but it can't, for example, claim that sovereignty over Hong Kong has reverted to the UK.
> Indeed, "considers itself the successor" implies that it does want to spread its systems to more people that don't want them.
If you go looking for UN views on whether Tibet is "part of" China, you will find plenty of dissent in various UN working groups and such, and if you read into the subtlety of diplomats working on the things that actually matter, you'll find people avoid saying one way or another because the things that matter don't involve the silly concept "part of", and because China freaks out uncooperatively if anyone mentions it, so it's better for dealing with real issues for people to avoid mentioning it. Even if they think it.
If you only look at formal views, via resolutions and such, I argue (as do many) those are just part of the diplomatic machinery. They don't define truth, or say what people actually think.
> that question doesn't impact whether Hong Kong is part of China.
I argue that whether Hong Kong is "part of" China is irrelevant to the question of whether China has (or had) ambitions to spread its systems over more people than before.
But since you bring up legal sovereignty, the question of whether China has the legal right to control the Hong Kong people in the way that it does, against their will and achieving it by dishonour and deception, is not as clear cut as you make out. The treaty being associated with the handover certainly has bearing on that. China broke international law in Hong Kong (not that international law is enforcible of course), and the very concept of legal sovereignty is founded on international agreements. If you don't honour agreements upon which the concept is founded, words like "legal sovereignty" don't mean anything anyway.
> to which the People's Republic considers itself the successor
Which again is about legal and political claims and such, and therefore irrelevant to the question of whether China desires to spread its present day political and social systems to more people.
Indeed, "considers itself the successor" implies that it does want to spread its systems to more people that don't want them.