The agreement was signed by Ngapoi Ngawang Jigme, who defended China`s Tibetan tolerance, then sealed in Beijing on May 23, 1951 and confirmed a few months later by the Tibetan government.  In addition, the Dalai Lama publicly announced that he would ratify the agreement and its adoption was also sent to Beijing on October 24 in the form of a telegram : the 17-point agreement proved to be an imperfect and ephemeral solution to bring together the Chinese Communists` calls for tolerance of sovereignty with Lhasa`s calls to preserve Tibetan autonomy. It has been deeply affected by the conflict between communist ideology and Chairman Mao`s recognition as a prominent leader and tibetans` deep dedication to the Dalai Lama as a national leader and to the embodied devotion to protection. In 1951, the United States informed the Dalai Lama that in order to obtain U.S. aid and support, he had to leave Tibet and “publicly reject the agreements reached under duress” between representatives of Tibet and China.  In 2012, the Dalai Lama mentioned that the seventeen point agreement was signed in the spirit of one country, two systems.   * Views recorded between on Cambridge Core. This data is updated every 24 hours. The Chinese put new seals for the Tibetans, but they were just personal seals engraved on the name of each delegate.
Otherwise, there were no false government seals. Part of the confusion stems from the fact that Ngabo had in his possession the seal of the governor of East Timor, but he did not want to use it. This seal, however, was not the official seal of the Tibetan government, so its non-rejection did not reduce the validity of the agreement. In his autobiography, the Dalai Lama explains that Tibetan delegates claimed that they had been forced “under duress” to sign the agreement. Their sense of compulsion stems from China`s general threat to resume military force in the center of the country if no agreement is reached. However, under international law, this does not invalidate an agreement. As long as there is no physical violence against the signatories, an agreement is valid. However, the validity of the agreement rests on the full power of the signatories to conclude an agreement and, as we have seen, this has clearly not been the case. In this sense, the Dalai Lama had reason to deny it.  The Tibetan delegation initially objected to the #1 reference to “aggressive imperialist forces in Tibet,” but later acknowledged that there might be forces they were unaware of. The points #2 and #3 were asked about the importance of “local government”, although the importance of “national regional autonomy” was not discussed, as the Tibetan delegation believed that things would continue as before.
Mr. Ngapois` delegation tried to withdraw the guarantees of power for the Panchen Lama on the points #5 and #6, but the Chinese delegation replied that the Panchen Lama and the Dalai Lama should be treated in the same way; either they have both guaranteed their power, or neither. The Tibetans recognized the point. Fundamental disagreements over the point #8, the dissolution of the Tibetan army, led to the promise to renegotiate the subject later….