«The Tibetan local government and the ecclesiastical and secular populations unanimously support this agreement and, under the leadership of President Mao and the central government, will actively assist the People`s Liberation Army of Tibet in consolidating national defence, driving out the imperialist influences of Tibet and ensuring the unification of the territory and the sovereignty of the motherland.»  The implementation of the CPA has been the subject of intense debate over the years. The Maoist army is limited to temporary cantons controlled and controlled by the United Nations (UNMIN). Their weapons were locked up in the cantonal unit and kept by the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN). Similarly, many weapons of the Nepalese army have been kept by UNMIN. However, the National Commission for Peace and Rehabilitation, the Truth Commission and a high-level commission for state restructuring have not yet been established. Similarly, the real estate confiscated by the Maoists has not yet been fully returned.    There have been disagreements between the Maoists and other parties on issues relating to the integration of the Maoist army into the Nepalese army. Former Prime Minister Madav Kumar Nepal says the Maoist army will be rehabilitated and integrated into the Nepalese army, but key partners in the Nepal Congress and Madhesi Janadhikar Forum coalition are vehemently opposed to the idea.   Even former Defence Minister Bidhya Devi Bhandari is strongly opposed to the agreement.  The Chinese have certainly made new labels for Tibetans, but they are only personal seals on which the name of each delegate was engraved. Otherwise, there was no forged government seal.
Part of the confusion is due to the fact that Ngabo had in his possession the seal of the governor of eastern Tibet, but that he decided not to use it. However, this label was not the official seal of the Tibetan government, so the non-use of the agreement did not reduce the validity of the agreement. In his autobiography, the Dalai Lama states that Tibetan delegates claimed that they had been forced to sign the agreement «under duress» … Their sense of coercion stems from China`s general threat to regain military force in central Tibet if no agreement is reached. However, under international law, this does not invalidate any agreement. As long as there is no physical violence against the signatories, an agreement will apply. However, the validity of the agreement rests on the full power of the signatories to conclude an agreement and, as we have seen, this was clearly not the case. In this sense, the Dalai Lama actually had reason to deny it.  In his essay Hidden Tibet: History of Independence and Occupation, published by the Library of Tibetan Works and Archives in Dharamsala, S.L.
Kuzmin writes that the agreement was critically flawed.  The use of new personal seals instead of official state seals was not legal. Tibetan delegates exceeded their authority by signing the agreement without the agreement of the Dalai Lama and the Kashag. The preamble to the agreement contained ideological stereotypes that do not correspond to reality. The Chinese government ordered THE PLA soldiers who had entered Tibet to order the «local» government to send their people to negotiate with the center (i.e.