Can Nonintervention-ist East Asian states reign in an Intervention-ist India?

[xunzi]

China protested and Indonesia China relations deteriorated as a result when Indonesian citizens of chinese descent were attacked there a few years back.

It was an internal matter of Indonesia, and when it matters to them the chinese DID ''intervene''. So take your BS someplace else, its an order.

We did not intervene one bit. Don't mistake us of cutting tie from a moral perspective with intervening in the internal affair of Indonesia. We never did. They choose and do whatever they want in their country without us having any hand in it. Ask Indonesian.

 

[Tshering22]

To be quite honest, my knowledge on India's policies are quite limited, I'll have to review this before I give my point of view.

Let me give you a snapshot:

1- Ever since Bangladesh came into existence, thanks to our military, there has been an India friendly government in Bangladesh in general, called Awami League (popular league). Now this party over the years has been involved in local corruption there and therefore has become a problem for Bangladeshis. But somehow, they still continue to win elections. Now there is a fringe element of radical islamists who regret the separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan (Refer 1971 Indo-Pak war if you are unaware). They are the theocratic fanatics who loath the Hindu and Buddhist Bangladeshis and hate India all the more for the same reason. They feel that those who are no Muslim are all Indian 'agents'.

For years, these guys have been trying to come to power but have failed in their elections because the general crowd doesn't elect them. Frustrated with repeated electoral failure, they think that we have 'installed' the Awami League as a the perennial rulers of their country. It is true that when Bangladesh became independent, the AL had strong support from our country for their freedom, but years later i.e. now, it is mostly their internal politics. To the world, they project that they are a 'small nation struggling against big bully India' to get the sympathies while their radical groups create hell in Indo-Bangla border through migrating illegally and attacking locals. We don't like it so they get pissed. Beat that logic.

2- Regarding Pakistan, you know too well what our relations with them are like.

3- Nepal: Culturally same, we have invested a lot in there and therefore have a considerable influence there in terms of friendly relations. Nepali far-left want to use anti-India agenda as they have relations with communist terrorists in India. While the Nepali nationalists are there, they don't have any significant seats in Nepali Parliament. To make a political issue, they constantly rake up the 'big India bully' which their ruling government doesn't think so.

However, our historic ties are excellent always. We have an open border policy with Nepal and Bhutan, which means Nepalis and Bhutanese people can stay, work and live in India as long as they want and vice versa. Nepal's national security is our collective responsibility.

4- Our ties have significantly improved with Sri Lanka after Mr. Rajapakse's visit to Delhi 2 weeks ago and both nations are willing to forget past bitterness and move forward with strong relations.

5- Afghanistan has strong relations with India and we enjoy warm ties with both Afghan people and the government.

6- Mauritius: Another friendly country. It is an indianized country with robust commercial and economic relations with us. We also are responsible for their security in the Indian Ocean.

7- Bhutan: A very staunch ally, Bhutan's hydropower capability has a robust investment from our private corporates like Tata Power. Their and Nepali rupees are pegged to our currency. Very cordial relations between the two. Bhutan's national security is our responsibility.

8- Maldives: Strong ties historically, except once in the middle when the previous government of Mr. Nasheed was kicked out and the new government became anti-India. However, things have warmed up now and differences are settled. We are responsible for their security.

 

[notsuperstitious]

We did not intervene one bit. Don't mistake us of cutting tie from a moral perspective with intervening in the internal affair of Indonesia. We never did. They choose and do whatever they want in their country without us having any hand in it. Ask Indonesian.

Putting pressure on a country for a matter internal to it IS intervention Mr. Captain, Team Mental Gymnastics, China!

Moral perspective? bullfckingshyte! They were CHINESE by ethnicity THATS ALL! Otherwise china has been ''non interventionist'' in places like Burma, North Korea, Pakistan, Zimbabwe... you name it.

Basically your BS has been called. Now man up and accept it.

 

[xunzi]

Putting pressure on a country for a matter internal to it IS intervention Mr. Captain, Team Mental Gymnastics, China!

That is not an internal matter. That is global human right issue. Genocide is not internal matter.

Cutting diplomatic tie is pressure? Are you kidding me? What is your IQ? Indonesia also agreed to cut tie with us as they were anti-Communist back in the day. It is mutual. Once again, we did not interfere in their internal politics. They carry out any policy that they want and like. This is a fact.

 

[notsuperstitious]

That is not an internal matter. That is global human right issue. Genocide is not internal matter.

Cutting diplomatic tie is pressure? Are you kidding me? What is your IQ? Indonesia also agreed to cut tie with us as they were anti-Communist back in the day. It is mutual. Once again, we did not interfere in their internal politics. They carry out any policy that they want and like. This is a fact.

You are questioning my iq, the greatest non interventionist supporter of all kinds of repressive genicidal regimes in the world? (except the lone exception of ''global'' issue of attacks on ethnic indonesian Chinese)

You are too full of it.

YES, cutting ties is pressure, WTF is that then? Fun and games???

 

[xunzi]

You are questioning my iq, the greatest non interventionist supporter of all kinds of repressive genicidal regimes in the world? (except the lone exception of ''global'' issue of attacks on ethnic indonesian Chinese)

You are too full of it.

YES, cutting ties is pressure, WTF is that then? Fun and games???

Read my explanation to you again. We did not support North Korea genocide. In fact, we oppose anyone messing around with their politics, which sometime come off as we are supporting them when in fact, we didn't. Opposing sanction against NK does not equal actively interfere in their internal affair. We oppose for our own security. Remember, we didn't arm North Korea here. They can freely execute a pro-China senior official, 2nd in command, how you think we are intervening in their domestic affair? What Indonesia did and our response was mutual. We did not intervene. You might want to talk to an Indonesian to clarify because at this point, I am wasting my time on a very low intelligent person.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Read my explanation to you again. We did not support North Korea genocide. In fact, we oppose anyone messing around with their politics, which sometime come off as we are supporting them when in fact, we didn't. Opposing sanction against NK does not equal actively interfere in their internal affair. We oppose for our own security. Remember, we didn't arm North Korea here. They can freely execute a pro-China senior official, 2nd in command, how you think we are intervening in their domestic affair? What Indonesia did and our response was mutual. We did not intervene. You might want to talk to an Indonesian to clarify because at this point, I am wasting my time on a very low intelligent person.

Your mental gymnastics certainly has a minimum iq requirement. Meaning only a person of minimum iq would follow it.

 

[xunzi]

Your mental gymnastics certainly has a minimum iq requirement. Meaning only a person of minimum iq would follow it.

LOL

 

[Kaniska]

I respect the intellectual audacity of the thread poster...But i beleive, if BD wants to be compleley independent from influence of India as they claim to be then economics will be the prime driver...Develop your economy and be independent...Apart from a development of economy, nothing else will give you any advantage with any big neighour...This case is applicable for India too wrt China...

 

[kalu_miah]

The American Doctrine of Nonintervention | Teaching American History

The American Doctrine of Nonintervention
William H. Seward, Secretary of State

Letter to William Dayton

August 11, 1863

This government is profoundly and agreeably impressed with the consideration which the Emperor has manifested towards the United States by inviting their concurrence in a proceeding having for its object the double interests of public order and humanity. Nor is it less favorably impressed with the sentiments and the prudential considerations which the Emperor has in so becoming a manner expressed to the court of St. Petersburg. They are such only as appeal to the just emotions and best sympathies of mankind. The enlightened and humane character of the Emperor of Russia, so recently illustrated by the enfranchisement of a large mass of the Russian people from inherited bondage, and the establishment of an impartial and effective administration of justice through-out his dominions, warrant a belief that the appeal will be received and responded to by him with all the favor that is consistent with the general welfare of the great state over which he presides with such eminent wisdom and moderation.

Notwithstanding, however, the favor with which we thus regard the suggestion of the Emperor of the French, this government finds an insurmountable difficulty in the way of any active cooperation with the governments of France, Austria, and Great Britain, to which it is thus invited.

Founding our institutions upon the basis of the rights of man, the builders of our Republic came all at once to be regarded as political reformers, and it soon became manifest that revolutionists in every country hailed them in that character, and looked to the United States for effective sympathy, if not for active support and patronage. Our invaluable Constitution had hardly been established when it became necessary for the government of the United States to consider to what extent we could, with propriety, safety, and beneficence, intervene, either by alliance or concerted action with friendly powers or otherwise, in the political affairs of foreign states. An urgent appeal for such aid and sympathy was made in behalf of France, and the appeal was sanctioned and en-forced by the treaty then existing of mutual alliance and defence, a treaty without which it may even now be confessed, to the honor of France, our own sovereignty and independence could not have been so early secured. So deeply did this appeal touch the heart of the American people, that only the deference they cherished to the counsels of the Father of our Country, who then was at the fulness of his unapproachable moral greatness, reconciled them to the stern decision that, in view of the location of this republic, the characters, habits, and sentiments of its constituent parts, and especially its complex yet unique and very popular Constitution, the American people must be content to recommend the cause of human progress by the wisdom with which they should exercise the powers of self-government, forbearing at all times, and in every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference.

It is true that Washington thought a time might come when, our institutions being firmly consolidated and working with complete success, we might safely and perhaps beneficially take part in the consultations held by foreign states for the common advantage of the nations. Since that period occasions have frequently happened which presented seductions to a departure from what, superficially viewed, seemed a course of isolation and indifference. It is scarcely necessary to recur to them. One was an invitation to a congress of newly emancipated Spanish-American states; another an urgent appeal to aid Hungary in a revolution aiming at the restoration of her ancient and illustrious independence; another, the project of a joint guarantee of Cuba to Spain in concurrence with France and Great Britain; and more recently, an invitation to a cooperative demonstration with Spain, France, and Great Britain in Mexico; and, later still, suggestions by some of the Spanish-American states for a common council of the republican states situated upon the American continent. These suggestions were successively disallowed by the government, and its decision was approved in each case by the deliberate judgment of the American people. Our policy of non-intervention, straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations, has thus become a traditional one, which could not be abandoned without the most urgent occasion, amounting to a manifest necessity. Certainly it could not be wisely departed from at this moment, when the existence of a local, although as we trust only a transient disturbance, deprives the government of the counsel of a portion of the American people, to whom so wide a departure from the settled policy of the country must in any case be deeply interesting.

The President will not allow himself to think for a single moment that the Emperor of the French will see anything but respect and friendship for himself and the people of France, with good wishes for the preservation of peace and order, and the progress of humanity in Europe, in the adherence of the United States on this occasion to the policy which they have thus far pursued with safety, and not without advantage, as they think, to the interests of mankind.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

I never implied nor claimed that China and Japan would "ditch India" for "the controlling stake in BD", or expect that "China and Japan should intervene in BD". What we are discussing in fact is that while China becomes an economic partner of India and Japan becomes an economic as well as security partner of India, whether these two Nonintervention-ist states will perhaps educate the clueless Indian strategists the beauty and efficacy of and skillful use of Nonintervention-ism and noninterference approach, specially when you are not the top superpower of the world yet and are only making your first baby steps striving to make your journey towards that long term goal.

If you follow the thread, you will find that the US did follow the same approach of nonintervention and noninterference till it became the most powerful nation after end of WW II and China is pretty much following same approach during its rise to the top.

US was never considered a big power before WW1. And for ur information do yu know the meaning of Non-Interventionalism?
Do yu know the game China is playing in P-O-K? In North Korea? In SCS? And know Japan's History? And know how the two "non interventionalism" states blame each other of interventionalism? Or does ur find become immune to that fact alone?

Ever country is a power to reckon with in its own backard. China and Japan does intervene in its own backyard. If you cannot see that then yu are prejuduiced. Simple as that.

 

[kalu_miah]

US was never considered a big power before WW1. And for ur information do yu know the meaning of Non-Interventionalism?
Do yu know the game China is playing in P-O-K? In North Korea? In SCS? And know Japan's History? And know how the two "non interventionalism" states blame each other of interventionalism? Or does ur find become immune to that fact alone?

Ever country is a power to reckon with in its own backard. China and Japan does intervene in its own backyard. If you cannot see that then yu are prejuduiced. Simple as that.

http://www.ecfr.eu/page/-/China_Analysis_The_End_of_Non_interference_October2013.pdf

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

http://www.ecfr.eu/page/-/China_Analysis_The_End_of_Non_interference_October2013.pdf

I do not have the time to read the 18 pages of pdf. It would be better if yu can bring some decent reply enough to counter my logic.

 

[Aepsilons]

Can Nonintervention-ist East Asian states reign in an Intervention-ist India?

The territorial boundaries of India placates the subcontinent power into a natural 'feel for it' position. She shares boundaries with countries that have different national interests and , in the instance of some, varying gepolicies. With the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, China, Bhutan, Nepal, Myanmar.

So to afford an objective analysis, I would like to answer your question with a rhetorical question: "Is it possible not to have a non-interventionist policy when some neighbors have opposing interests?"

I think in the natural discourse of nation states, there is a natural balance of bilateral trade, investments, with intelligence operations. I would deign to conjecture that India is not the only country that would find it fortuitious to engage in intelligence scouting with neighbors, as i'm sure -- and quite confident -- that surrounding neighbors engage in similar processes.

India, as an enormous nation state, with a population of over 1.2 billion people (and expected to surpass that of China's), a vibrant and heterogenous population dynamic , will find it almost a national imperative to bring neighbors to its magnetic fold. Of course, it will only be natural for some neighbors, out of concerns for the magnanimity of India's growth, will try to court the relations of other powers to try to offset -- or to prevent the total surpass of India's economic, political and military clout.

 

[kalu_miah]

I do not have the time to read the 18 pages of pdf. It would be better if yu can bring some decent reply enough to counter my logic.

China's noninterventionist policy is the subject of that paper, so it is not my imagination but opinion of scholars. Japan has a pacifist constitution since end of WW II and Japanese foreign policy is by definition non-interventionist in nature.

There is no backyard of any nation that is recognized under International norms, practices and law. There is only sovereign nation states, which is recognized by International law:
Sovereign state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia