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, ther

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. Only inside China.