Following China Anon's 1st Message to Submarine Matters of April 29, 2022 , China Anon kindly provided a 2nd message on May 16, 2022.
China Anon, from the PRC, said:
“This blog's commentary
is quite negative towards China. More than many forums I saw. Anyway. Indian
comments are usual though...
First I would like to
answer [those] who think I will be called to the police station or something. I
won't be. Criticism of the government in China is allowed. Just spend 5-10 mins
on Weibo (our Twitter). And we
are the country with the most protests. Since we don't vote for the government
that is our primary method of displaying disapproval.
[China Anon provided following
link] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/how-china-stays-stable-despite-500-protests-every-day/250940/
The only two topics [we]
have to keep clear of are the legitimacy of the CCP rule and secessionism.
There are misconceptions
about China's relations to Russia. The Vladivostok dispute has ended. In fact,
China ended its disputes with 12 out of its 14 land neighbors, sometimes ceding
territory. So that face saving argument is moot. China's territorial claims are
inherited from the preceding Republic of China - and the PRC has shown the
willingness to compromise if needed. We are not going to ruin our relations
with Russia for a piece of land we don't even claim anymore. But we are definitely
going to aid Russia more in its incoming turbulent times to make it more Asian.
Russia only started
reciprocating China's friendly gestures after it was rejected by the West. [Russia’s]
first choice is obvious. China needs to and will treat Russia even better to
have it turn its face to the east permanently. [China] going after [Russian] lands
is just asking for pro-Westernism in Russia. That would be followed by a colour
revolution which means China would end up with a very hostile nuclear armed
state on its border. A border that is very long and otherwise problemless... I
don't know what you think of us but we are neither stupid nor evil enough to
take advantage of a supposedly weakened Russia. And that "weakened"
Russia still has enough nukes to incinerate China.
[Where Pete wrote] "If we told [China Anon] that he is ruled by a group of billionaire CCP
capitalists who continue to rule China he might quietly recognise this but
cannot reveal that he knows it."
I can. China is
capitalist. Its socialism is just a future goal that stays there to be lip
service to socialists in China and beyond. After all just the existence of
private property is enough to rule it out as a socialist country. And if you
think China is corrupt now you should have seen it during the 1990s. We used to
put cash money into folders we were submitting to the government offices,
otherwise, it would wait for months to get processed. Thankfully lower and
middle level corruption got eliminated. The upper level is still problematic.”
Pete Comment
China Anon’s comments seem fair and reasonable, especially:
- China's self-interest in making Russia more Asian, in "But we are definitely going to aid Russia more in its incoming turbulent times to make it more Asian."
and
- Anon's last paragraph.
In view of that last
paragraph it looks like China’s internet censors can be tolerant.
But it must be said, overall, that Xi (who apparently aims at being Leader for life) and the Chinese military, remain a threat to Australia.
Firstly, now I don't believe a single bit now, that he is Chinese living in China. He is most probably Chinese Aussie.
ReplyDeleteAnd obviously, he doesn't know, how China pushed India into the Quad after trying wolf warrior diplomacy against India. China is not evil, but CCP is stupid and evil.
Here Claude Arpi explained the proof of stupidity in great detail
https://claudearpi.blogspot.com/2020/07/xi-and-poor-art-of-war.html
And here again, explained the CCP's thinking
https://www.stimson.org/2022/chinas-evolving-strategic-discourse-on-india/
As for Russia, if the Chinese think Russians trust the Chinese, then they living in fools paradise. They extracted huge amounts from China for the IP violations they did and still selling weapons to Vietnam, and they keep selling. So much so for brother in arms.
Also "Chinese Anon", if you want to be honest, drop this patronizing and holier than thou attitude.
ReplyDeletePeople in the world are smart enough to understand, that no one in the world is like that. People get that, it's alright if you justify certain actions of China by saying self-interests. But if you want to suggest that China is here for saving the world from ebil Amrika, then with no other choice, have to pop the bubble. Just be honest, if you want the people to trust you.
With such an attitude, the Chinese alienated Aussies, where you had one of the biggest expatriates and trade. Need more strategic blunders to justify how crazy Xi Jinping is?
Extraordinary comments, completely detached from others understanding of the world and cause and effect.
ReplyDeleteFirst Russia. The west did not reject Russia. Russia received billions in economic aid from Germany and USA after the end of the cold war in 1990. Russia was the scene of a counter-revolution where hardline former Soviet ex-KGB forces reasserted control. Gradually democracy has been subverted by authoritarianism. In the 1990s many western multinational companies did try to exploit Russia when it was weak. But the main exploiters of Russia are corrupt Russian oligarchs. Russia has reverted to an imperialist mindset, trying to recreate the former Soviet Union by force, without any underlying ideological justification. This is a threat to all, and is doomed to failure, since it creates too many enemies, even among traditional neutrals like Finland and Sweden.
China is free to ally with Russia like any country, if it sees mutual benefit. But Russia is now an international pariah. China must realise that closeness to Russia will damage China’s international standing.
Second China. China is a large complex country and a few sentences won’t do it justice. I have many Chinese Australian friends. I find the culture and history of China fascinating, and its economic rise was inevitable. The 19th/20th centuries were an aberration for China. Australia and all the world need to get used to a powerful China, which is the historical norm.
Yet an imperialist and aggressive China is still not welcome. It seems to be the setting under Xi Jinping, and so like Russia it is creating many enemies in the Indo-Pacific. Whether this is called capitalism or communism does not matter. It is authoritarianism that is the problem. There have always been great powers in history, but the wise ones know when not to push their power too far. Once a great power threatens your survival, then even smaller nations must prepare to defend themselves. Eventually, when great powers create enough enemies this way, they fall. The Greeks called it hubris.
I do not see this as inevitable. Many periods of Chinese history saw it as stable and prosperous. Under Deng and Hu, China’s leaders seemed more adept at charting a middle course between competitive but peaceful expansion and intimidating aggression. I hope China’s leadership has the wisdom to return to the former course, or this century will see a lot of conflict.
Hi Pete,
ReplyDeleteInteresting comment. China Anon's comment about being able to comment about most things besides CCP legitimacy matches what I've been told by a few friends in HK and China, and the HK friends are either not friendly to the CCP or neutral, just want to get on with life. Still , the fact you have to be careful and use VPN's means something.
"China's friendly gestures" suggests some possible 50 cent background though.
Andrew
Arpit Kanodia
ReplyDeleteWhere did I say China's goal is to save everyone from the USA? Yes I think the USA is an extremely aggressive nation and China's track record is relatively good for its size. Just look at how even smaller countries like Israel and Iran are throwing their weights around. China wasn't like that and I hope it won't be. That's said I didn't imply China was 100% innocent or it will save everyone. Every country looks after its self-interests
What I am saying since the beginning is I think Australia made a mistake by joining the US containment campaign against China. I also think its foreign policy of sending soldiers everywhere the US sends is wrong. This was my comment.
And stop accusing me of being patronizing. You were wishing for the destruction of my country a few comments ago. I think you are the one getting offended by views that doesn't present China as an evil empire. I said a possible conflict in Aksai Chin is a lot more likely and important scenario than Australia for China. Isn't that true? There are flare-ups every few years and no, I don't think China is responsible for all of them. Both sides aren't compromising and that makes the thing dangerous.
And I think Russia trusts China plenty. It currently has no significant force on its China border. Most of the border is not guarded. China and Russia are collaborating at BM strike early warning systems. That's a tech you bet your country's existence on yet they are collaborating. We also saw a unified command system during the latest exercises in 2021. China brought J-20s to that exercise despite doing so revealing its radar signature. I don't know how they could trust each other more. These are things you can not even write about in the same context with China selling generic stuff (which were probably licensed by the USSR anyway) to Vietnam. What is the price for being the Pacific part of Russia's early warning system for example? What you are correct at is I went to university outside China. It was Germany though not Australia. I currently live in China.
"First Russia. The west did not reject Russia."
ReplyDeleteNo it was thoroughly rejected. The relations were already going sour before Georgia 2008. And the treatment it got was much different compared other Eastern Bloc countries.
Speaking of Hu Jintao, he is not very popular in China. His era was marked by skyrocketing air pollution and income inequality. Incredibly lax visa controls during his era are quite disliked as well. Though he was good at marketing China to the West. His foreign policy was the same with Xi. He was the one who captured the Scarborough Shoal. 2005 Taiwan anti-secession law was passed during his tenure too. What has changed is the US attitude towards China, not China itself.
Hi Arpit Kanodia [your May 16, 2022, 4:44:00 PM where you suspect China Anon is a "Chinese Aussie"]
ReplyDeleteMy sitemeter visitor log indicates China Anon's May 17, 2022, 1:18:00 PM reply to you time-period tallies as coming from Shanghai, China.
Shanghai houses one of the Chinese NSA's international units which was codenamed "Unit 61398" in 2012 and maybe still is. See https://www.smh.com.au/technology/unit-61398--the-featureless-12storey-building-which-houses-one-of-the-worlds-most-dangerous-and-secretive-cyberhacking-operations-20130220-2eqj4.html
Unit 61398 is part of the wider China NSA - with that NSA staffed by seconded members of PLA Intelligence and the Ministry of State Security (MSS).
China NSA is of course capable of many things, including cyber-hacking and commenting on blogs.
The commenting function can come by way:
- of China NSA staff commenting themselves (quite expensive)
or
- permitting the comments of unpaid (or low paid) Chinese netizens to get through the "Great Firewall of China" barrier
More on China NSA at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2011/11/new-us-paper-on-chinas-defence-sigint.html Note reference to Shanghai.
Pete
Firstly, if you are living in China, then you be cleared by CCP to post comments here (and somewhat blame CCP to again make a good image in Australian minds, after disastrous policies) after seeing the multi-national nature of this blog.
ReplyDeleteAnd no doubt, the USA is an imperialist power, but it is a benevolent imperialist power. While PRC is not,, it is totally malevolent and evil. And I never said China was evil, but CCP and PRC. China is a civilizational state, how could it be evil? But CCP is systematically destroying the whole civilizational culture, and ethos of the Chinese people, this is proof that CCP is indoctrinated you so much, that you are not able to see it.
And for Australia, they have a civilizational history with the US and the west. And you are surprised why Aussies are close to them, might be because CCP systematically destroyed Chinese culture?
But even telling this to Aussies, that why should they are close to US, is patronizing.
Here is a quote from your last comments
" We have priorities such as being able to end RoC/Taiwan despite US intervention, deterring India from invading Pakistan or Aksai Chin, being able to neutralize the US airpower in Japan and the Japanese air force, and in near future, securing our SLOC to the Middle East and Africa."
If you think these are not patronizing, then I must say, CCP indoctrinated you well. The fall of the CCP is guaranteed, the policies they adopted is unsustainable, and Xi Jinping is nothing but Brezhnev 2.0 and but far more stupider.
As for the war in Askai Chin, that is not going to happen, whatever propaganda CCP spread to the people of Shanghai and Beijing. If they go nuts like Ruskies, then we are prepared. Indian Army is not the Ukrainian Army.
As for Russia-China, India hasn't invested in early warning with Russians because they are at least one two-generation behind the west in such technologies. We collaborated with Isreal in Early warning and FCR for BM. Here
https://twitter.com/sanders_IMINT/status/1462741003144736775
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Szeq8IeeIVA
I don't know if you are able to access Twitter/youtube or not, but the propaganda division of CCP has definitely given you such access I believe. The Chinese are investing with Russians because they are even far behind the Russians in these technologies.
In SBIRS, India collaborated with Japan, and the first satellite was GISAT-1, and now actually Indian armed forces coming out in open and want to purchase it directly for OpSec
https://currentaffairs.adda247.com/indian-navy-plans-to-purchase-the-gisat-2-satellite/
We only go to Russia on those techs that are not available from anywhere else, like a nuclear submarine, SLBM, MIRVing, cold testing, and buying HEU outside NPT/NSG. If your friend is doing this with your enemy, hmmm, I think it twice.
For J-20 don't make me laugh, in 4-5 years Pentagon leaked out exaggerated reports, for lobbies and think tanks to pressurize on US Govt. And gullible Chinese believe it? Right now, several aspects of J-20 is not even 4th gen, leave alone 5th gen. And there is nothing OpSec in J-20 that Ruskies don't know about.
@Arpit, brother, better to avoid emotionally charged responses. As a fellow Indian, I always humbly request fellow Indians to not give charged responses.
ReplyDelete@China Anon, many good points esp. about Hu Jintao and about how the CCP are not fools about listening to 'domestic voices' in one form or the other. I always hold that to have 'cartoon villain' type image of China is both unhelpful and dangerous.
That said, while China has in principle settled border issues with 12/14 bordering nations, the point still remains that China and India have no real basis for a hostile relationship. A side-effect of Sino-Soviet split and Nehru-Mao miscommunication has now ballooned into something much more bigger and complicated.
For instance, (you can check Chinese archives esp. letters of Zhou En Lai), China could easily solve the problem by doing what it agreed to in 1960, such as giving back the Depsang bulge, making minor adjustments to its 1960 claim line in a way that saves face for India in easing the pain of 1962. In return, I think some minor territorial concessions in the central segment of the LAC and some in the Eastern part of the LAC is easily possible as past discussions between Doval and Wang Jiechi have shown.
Arming pakistan and building stuff like the 'string of pearls' would have been largely unnecessary if Deng could have simply done what China promised to Rajiv or Xi could have offered mutually beneficial concessions to Modi. You will see that my entire line of argument is based on China's claims as a basis. Instead of needlessly badgering over small small border posts, the above approach based on Deng's 1987 'Ladakh-Aksai Chin for Arunachal' deal could have solved the problem at one stroke...
Instead sadly, what we see is needless maximalist intransigence and attempts to rub India's nose in the mud pointlessly.
I can only end by repeating what I asked a few weeks earlier, 'Why can't China give India the same pragmatism based 'face saving' chance that it expects from everyone else?'. This is not about superpower vs a middle power etc..just cold pragmatism to secure the border.
The India-China border issue is the most pointless conflict in Asia...we should have been cordial neighbours given our ancient cultural links and peaceful co-existence... sigh!
Hi Ghalib [at May 18, 2022, 1:20:00 PM]
ReplyDeleteWell said.
A conciliatory path between India and China is the way to go.
As an example of moderation in action - it seems Indian and Chinese generals at times in the 2020-22 skirmishes agreed to limit fighting to melees (hand to hand combat) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932022_China%E2%80%93India_skirmishes
This kept casualties much lower than machineguns and artillery would ordinarily reap.
Of course better not come to violence in the first place.
Regards Pete
@GhalibKabir and @Pete
ReplyDeleteHere's my thoughts on the subject:
I must say conflict (both in the literal sense & conflict of interests) between India and China is more or less inevitable. The seeds were sown in 1950 when the Communist Chinese invaded Tibet and enacted a brutal suppression of freedoms against the Tibetan people - causing the Dalai Lama to flee & form his Government-in-Exile at Dharamshala, India.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Tibetan_Administration
Tibet being an independent country and acting as a buffer between India & China offered some hope for peace between the two countries going forward, but Mao changed all that. With two countries of considerable size & differing worldviews sharing a border, conflict was never a matter of if but when. Just look at the history of Europe.
Mao had enacted a plan based upon his philosophy whereby if Tibet was the palm, the five fingers would be Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan & Arunachal Pradesh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Fingers_of_Tibet
You will see that is why Chinese incursions & provocations are not limited to the 'disputed' regions of Ladakh & Arunachal but also take place in Sikkim (which China no longer officially lays claim to). No matter what the Chinese say or don't say regarding a particular border being settled or not, when the time comes they will throw all pieces of written paper & spoken word out of the window to enact policies in their national interest. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons (inherited from the USSR) to Russia in return for an assurance never to be invaded...but when Russia determined that Ukraine was not making the noises it wanted to hear, we're all seeing what those assurances were worth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
Which is why I'll go one step further and say that Mao was wrong...if his philosophy was to be taken to its natural conclusion, Tibet would have not five but seven fingers - the other two being the Indian states of Himachal Pradesh & Uttarakhand. What do these 2 states have in common with the other five 'fingers'? The answer is Geography. If China wishes to control all of the Himalayan frontier of Tibet, then it must also control these 2 Indian states.
So why are regions like Ladakh & Arunachal/Sikkim prioritized by China as more important (therefore front & centre) for the immediate future? Again the answer is geography. Ladakh & Arunachal provide the best avenues for India to launch counteroffensives into Tibet. The terrain of the other regions does not permit as much movement from the Indian side as these two regions do. An offensive from India via these regions has the potential to sever important sections of the G219 highway at several points, cutting the main artery for movement of men & material between Tibet & the Xinjiang regions of China.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_National_Highway_219
Whereas an offensive from Sikkim (and also via Bhutan which is an Indian protectorate and allows free movement of Indian military assets) has the potential to encircle the Chumbi Valley region of Tibet, which would have allowed for the best staging ground for Chinese offensives toward the Siliguri Corridor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chumbi_Valley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siliguri_Corridor
Continued...
Continued from above...
ReplyDeleteANY AND ALL Indian presence on the Himalayas presents a serious threat to Chinese territorial integrity, which is why we mustn't fool ourselves into thinking any sort of arrangement that leaves significant parts of the Himalayan frontier in Indian hands would ever be truly acceptable to the Chinese...or worse yet, that the Chinese would honour such agreements after the fact.
Nepal & Bhutan have just as much to worry (if not more), its just that they don't possess the potential military capabilities to threaten China, so they are not prioritized at the moment (with the exception of 2017 Doklam incident).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff
Chinese control of Tibet is bad enough from a geopolitical point of view for the future of India, which is why I would rate it as the 2nd greatest tragedy of the last century:
https://imgur.com/a/OBwzEmL
...on top of that, can we truly tolerate the Chinese sitting on advantageous heights so close to the Indian heartland, together with them controlling the water supply for the majority of Indian population (map above)?
https://imgur.com/a/yXnfldF
Whereas the Chinese heartland remains far away:
https://imgur.com/a/bQrfQHc
If successive governments of India (including the current one) had any inkling of geostrategic thought, they would have prioritized the CCP control of Tibet as the single greatest POTENTIAL threat to Indian civilization way back in the 50s or at least the 60s, and took steps accordingly. Unfortunately that wasn't done and even today it's only being done in a piecemeal manner. Truly disappointing for me.
This is also why its extremely important for India to develop offensive, blue-water naval capabilities that can effectively shut down the Malacca Straits or beyond, as doing so is the only realistic way India has within reach in order to threaten the Chinese heartland in a similar way...as 80% of China's energy import as well as 60% of its goods trade happens through these straits, without access to which the Chinese economy & power structures run the risk of collapse.
Chinese control of Tibet is simply unacceptable in my opinion and MUST be reversed and the region returned to being an independent country as it was before 1950, and serving as a buffer between the Indian & Chinese civilizations. In the modern age where technology can allow the traditional barriers of geography to be increasingly nullified, it's all the more important.
The one good thing that successive governments in India did was that they never gave up the Tibetan government-in-exile despite decades of Chinese insistence. This card remains in our hands to play at the opportune time, most likely in coordination with the US.
As a closing note, the next Dalai Lama will in all likelihood be an Indian-born citizen.
Some currently ongoing events relevant to the topic:
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/political-pulse/uzra-zeya-dharmshala-dalai-lama-7923472/
And headlines from the recent past:
https://www.reuters.com/article/china-tibet-usa-idUSKBN28W0PS
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/12/20/us-appoints-new-tibet-coordinator-amid-tensions-with-china
Cheers
Thanks Gessler [at May 19, 2022, 4:04:00 PM and May 19, 2022, 4:05:00 PM]
ReplyDeleteCompellingly argued.
I'll turn your words into an article soon.
Regards Pete
Gessler, I am no fan of China. However, I find myself agreeing partly and disagreeing partly with your position
ReplyDelete1. Where I agree:
A. Yes, you are right that China's history is replete with agreements of convenience and in fact they are masters are drafting boundary agreements with such finesse as to leave 'room' for dispute later as a 'hedge'. Ideally yes Tibetan control by China is a not helpful and Tibet as a buffer would help. I agree there are 'seven fingers' incl. Uttarakhand.
B. As things stand, you are right, navally choking the Malacca straits and leveraging Indian operational advantages in Ladakh in mountain warfare are key strengths for India.
2. Where I disagree strenuously - first the border
A. Unfortunately, however tenuous, China has had direct/indirect control of Tibet since atleast the Yuan dynasty, a claim we cannot make thanks to the himalayan barrier. Ditto, for the Tarim basin, Chinese control goes back even further and was solid by the time the Yuans followed by the Mings came to power. There are regular reports of strife being put down, Chinese emperors getting a steady supply of Xinjiang concubines etc.
Broadly speaking, the dispute lies in the fact that China refuses to demarcate the lines and keeps salami slcing them west. You may remember that the first land claim China made was in 1954 in Barahoti, uttarakhand in the central LAC. Also in the NEFA, while it is very very clear hindu kingdoms existed in the lower part till the south of Tawang, Tawang and the northern sliver of Arunachal was hotly contested by the Tibetans themselves in 1914.
B. I am not saying that justifies China's claims. But history is history and we cannot escape the fact that the 1914 agreement rather disagreement wrt McMahon line was from the Tibetan side esp. Tawang and surroundings. Zhou and Mao were willing to acknowledge the Mcmahon line in the North East in return for India accepting the 1956 and later 1960 claim line in Aksai Chin-Ladakh. Again, it pays to remember that as late as 1954 the official maps of India left the border as undemarcated east of Leh onwards. Indian trade caravans went till Yarkand using the Karakoram pass. There is little to suggest even the Sikhs went beyond Pangong Tso in the 1842 war with the Tibetans (Tibet asked for China's help)
end of Part 1
Point 2 continued,
ReplyDeleteLet us come to blue water navy and Malacca. Doing a careful escalation ladder experiment can give you a realistic ideas as to how likely India is take such a drastic step. I assure you the TPTB at Zhongnanhai have meticulously gamed every step like a 'Go' Player. I am afraid they have come to the probably right conclusion that India's federal structure and nature of civilian control of military acts as both a upper side and lower side bound. it prevents recklessness like pakistan but it also caps risk taking ability. Singapore's LKY presciently makes this point in a 1990 interview (after visiting Beijing at the invitation of their top brass).
It comes down to this, how much are the 'allies' of India such as the quad willing to enforce a joint naval blockade? I am afraid the threshold for our reaction is considerably higher while the Chinese are not hesitant to indulge in degrees of 'boiling things to just below the threshold'. I am not saying they are an invincible force...
I am certainly saying, as things stand, I cannot see a way to politically/economically/militarily coerce China without eliciting a strong response. The only way in the next few decades is an aging China making catalytic judgmental errors that act as some sort of 'irreversible tipping points'.
PS: My uncomfortable feeling is that China's top brass is betting on a mix of climate change introduced water/food shortages lighting up the communal powder keg once more between India Pakistan and Bangladesh as climate refugees try to flood into India by 2050... hence their continued intransigence and maximalist posture. Simply put, why should i offer a draw when i can keeping checking the opposition's king and possess options for multiple checkmates? they have examined threats to themselves from India and found it lacking in credibility. I don't think that will change till China kicks a few self-goals
PPS: sorry for a rather rambling response...i tried to gather my thoughts as best as i could
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@GhalibKabir
ReplyDeleteWhile its true that Tibet had been part of Chinese empires for longer than the periods where they were independent (though that was through subjugation and not by choice), we mustn't think this gives the Chinese a divine right or anything to control this region. Yes it should go toward informing our calculation regarding how much the enemy is prepared to lose to defend it, but not much otherwise.
Plus, its not like Tibet was/is an integral part of the Chinese culture/civilization or anything...heck, even their language is derived from Sanskrit & written in an Indic script like most Indian languages, and not derived from any Chinese/East Asian language base.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lhasa_Tibetan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_script
Not to forget the effect of Buddhism in forming & shaping Tibetan culture - Buddhism again being a religion formed & exported to East Asia from the aforementioned Indian heartland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism
I'd say the Chinese have about as much legitimate claim on Tibet as we do on the various countries of South-East Asia because of past like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chola_dynasty
...which is to say, not much. To give matters a tinge of present-day happenings, Ukraine & the region surrounding Kiev is the literal heartland of the Russian civilization, yet that doesn't stop the West from pursuing its interests into this region does it? Or do they 'respect Russia's sensibilities' and leave?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27
If the West convinced itself that because of Russia's deep historical & cultural linkages with the Ukraine, the region should be left in Russia's sphere of influence, the Russians would have won without firing a shot. I don't see why the Chinese should be given a free lunch where the Russians weren't...and with regard to a region which, like I pointed out above, is NOT as culturally a part of China as the Chinese would like you to believe.
The history of war is the history of the clash of interests & the clash of civilizations. Just because we happen to live in perhaps the longest period of undisturbed global peace (relatively speaking of course) we mustn't go out of our own way to convince ourselves that peace is/was always the norm & war was the aberration. I'd say the two interject each other as much as the Bull & the Bear do on the stock markets over an average day of indecisive trading.
Hi Gessler [at May 20, 2022, 12:32:00 PM]
ReplyDeleteOn second thoughts the comments and counter-comments in this thread form a useful medium for further discussion on India-Chinese LAND border issues remaining on this thread.
LAND border issues are of course important but this discussion is in such intricate detail (to most not living in India) and so removed from the sea, especially submarine raison d'etre of this Submarine Blog
that comments do not need a new article, after all.
Regards
Pete