What's new

Definitive shift in Chinese foreign policy

The attack came after "Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai" stupidity. Leave alone a warning, Chinese attacked India right after claiming to be brothers. In moral terms, it is considered outright backstabbing. So while Indians concede you won that war, don't try to gain any high moral grounds on it. You never had it, not even in the recent times

Wrong.

It was Nehru that said that stupid phrase, not us. (It is in Hindi, not Chinese).

And it was Nehru who back stabbed us, by hosting our largest separatist group in 1959, followed by the Forward Policy in 1962. Both of which led directly to the Sino-Indian War.
 
.
Wrong.

It was Nehru that said that stupid phrase, not us. (It is in Hindi, not Chinese).

And it was Nehru who back stabbed us, by hosting our largest separatist group in 1959, followed by the Forward Policy in 1962. Both of which led directly to the Sino-Indian War.

Agree on you for Forward Policy but not on Dalai Lama, it was just a Goodwill gesture on part of India since he is a Tibetan spiritual leader & India being a spiritual country in itself as well as country of Birth of Buddhism it was logical to host Dalai Lama by India.

As it was, he was given clear instructions on not to raise a Political movement when he is in India anyways.
 
.
Wrong.

It was Nehru that said that stupid phrase, not us. (It is in Hindi, not Chinese).

And it was Nehru who back stabbed us, by hosting our largest separatist group in 1959, followed by the Forward Policy in 1962. Both of which led directly to the Sino-Indian War.

And was it not Zhou en Lai who repeated the same after Nehru?

Was not Mao grateful to Nehru for India strove to be the representative of China when China was completely isolated by the world as is Iran today? You should call that a backstabbing, and not housing of the Dalai Lama who has barely ever had any powers or support and has always been symbolic.

The fact is, India too was isolated though not as much as was China and India wanted to help, and advocated for China's inclusion in the UN. Had India not seen the recent bloody partition and were economically independent, India would have easily stood up to the US that had forced India to help with the Tibet thing.

In fact, I have read in books (more than one) that it was the crisis at home brewing between the Defence Minister and Zhou en Lai with the deteriorating health of Mao that culminated in opening up of an unwanted front on Indian border so as to keep the Defence Minister away from the center.

Then I took that version with a pinch of salt, but now seeing China's stand in the recent times, it appears that that version must have been the truth.

There is absolutely nothing moral about any stand that China took.
 
.
Everyone (even the Indians) acknowledge that the Forward Policy was the trigger for the 1962 War.

Even if we completely ignore the 1959 back stabbing... it was still the Forward Policy that started the Sino-Indian War.

The bottom line is that if Nehru had not started the Forward Policy (after blabbering about Hindi Chini bhai bhai) then there would have been no war.
 
.
Everyone (even the Indians) acknowledge that the Forward Policy was the trigger for the 1962 War.

Even if we completely ignore the 1959 back stabbing... it was still the Forward Policy that started the Sino-Indian War.

The bottom line is that if Nehru had not started the Forward Policy (after blabbering about Hindi Chini bhai bhai) then there would have been no war.

So if there is a real seriousness inside China for maintaining a good relations with India than why not solve the border issue once & for all for an ever lasting peace b/w two Asian Giants?? Why is China dragging this issue further & further??

It's of no doubt at all that China isn't giving Aksai chin back to India nor is India Gift rapping AP & presenting it to China, than why not just make the present LAC the future IB??
 
.
So if there is a real seriousness inside China for maintaining a good relations with India than why not solve the border issue once & for all for an ever lasting peace b/w two Asian Giants?? Why is China dragging this issue further & further??

It's of no doubt at all that China isn't giving Aksai chin back to India nor is India Gift rapping AP & presenting it to China, than why not just make the present LAC the future IB??

Zhou En Lai already offered to exchange recognition of AP for Aksai Chin.

Nehru REJECTED this offer, because he wanted BOTH Aksai Chin and AP.

Instead he started the Forward Policy against us.
 
.
If you insist on extending your sovereignty as much as you can, to the point it where your rule stops only when because you've met sustained armed opposition, then logically you've created a condition where you are encircled by enemies, yes?

You might want to recall what happened to the King Frederick II of Prussia in the eighteenth century. When young he was a very cultured person, an accomplished flutist, and eagerly read philosophy. A few years after assuming power he broke alliances and treaties to pursue an old claim to a corner of Silesia against the Austrian Empire which a century before had granted his family a crown. Frederick succeeded at a bit of conquest even though most of Europe ganged up on him but Prussia didn't benefit because while he was an excellent general Prussia's economy and that of its trading partners had been severely damaged.
We have maintained the same territorial claim since 1949, and have even compromised in the past for less. However, there is only so much compromise we are willing to make. Your encirclement attempt against us began in 1949. Day by day we'll break through it.
 
.
And was it not Zhou en Lai who repeated the same after Nehru?

Was not Mao grateful to Nehru for India strove to be the representative of China when China was completely isolated by the world as is Iran today? You should call that a backstabbing, and not housing of the Dalai Lama who has barely ever had any powers or support and has always been symbolic.

The fact is, India too was isolated though not as much as was China and India wanted to help, and advocated for China's inclusion in the UN. Had India not seen the recent bloody partition and were economically independent, India would have easily stood up to the US that had forced India to help with the Tibet thing.

In fact, I have read in books (more than one) that it was the crisis at home brewing between the Defence Minister and Zhou en Lai with the deteriorating health of Mao that culminated in opening up of an unwanted front on Indian border so as to keep the Defence Minister away from the center.

Then I took that version with a pinch of salt, but now seeing China's stand in the recent times, it appears that that version must have been the truth.

There is absolutely nothing moral about any stand that China took.
Mao's health did not deteriorate until 1973. Your book or your memory is wrong. It was Mao that ordered the war in 1962 after warning India for several months. There was no backstabbing involved. Nehru was clearly told his Forward Policy would lead to war, and he ignored it.
 
.
We have maintained the same territorial claim since 1949, and have even compromised in the past for less. However, there is only so much compromise we are willing to make. Your encirclement attempt against us began in 1949. Day by day we'll break through it.
The current issue has to do with China nullifying its prior commitments to international laws and treaties.

You're the first Chinese to ever mention "encirclement" to me. I know it was bandied about prior to 1971 but of course Nixon and Kissinger and their successors worked hard to alleviate Chinese anxieties - a little too much, it seems.

It's been natural for nations experiencing the burgeoning strength of industrialization to consider imperialism. I'd like to think the Chinese will be wiser and avoid following the errors of the Japanese, British, Germans, and Dutch. But maybe not.
 
.
And was it not Zhou en Lai who repeated the same after Nehru?

Was not Mao grateful to Nehru for India strove to be the representative of China when China was completely isolated by the world as is Iran today? You should call that a backstabbing, and not housing of the Dalai Lama who has barely ever had any powers or support and has always been symbolic.

The fact is, India too was isolated though not as much as was China and India wanted to help, and advocated for China's inclusion in the UN. Had India not seen the recent bloody partition and were economically independent, India would have easily stood up to the US that had forced India to help with the Tibet thing.

In fact, I have read in books (more than one) that it was the crisis at home brewing between the Defence Minister and Zhou en Lai with the deteriorating health of Mao that culminated in opening up of an unwanted front on Indian border so as to keep the Defence Minister away from the center.

you better get your facts straight first,the 1962 war was the direct result of Nehru's forward policy and Indian encroachment of Chinese territory.India did recognized PRC but so did many developing countries.have to admit that in 1950s China's main international support was from USSR and Easntern European group when China wasn't even a member of UN.China joined the UN in 1971.your school's history teaching is so messed up,that's why you can never learn from the history.

The Forward Policy
According to James Barnard Calvin of the U.S. Navy, in 1959, India started sending Indian troops and border patrols into disputed areas. This program created both skirmishes and deteriorating relations between India and China.[8] The aim of this policy was to create outposts behind advancing Chinese troops to interdict their supplies, forcing them north of the disputed line.[8][24][27][30] There were eventually 60 such outposts, including 43 north of the McMahon Line, to which India claimed sovereignty[/COLOR].[8][13] China viewed this as further confirmation of Indian expansionist plans directed towards Tibet. According to the Indian official history, implementation of the Forward Policy was intended to provide evidence of Indian occupation in the previously unoccupied region through which Chinese troops had been patrolling. Kaul was confident, through contact with Indian Intelligence and CIA information, that China would not react with force.[17] Indeed, at first the PLA simply withdrew, but eventually Chinese forces began to counter-encircle the Indian positions which clearly encroached into the north of McMahon Line. This led to a tit-for-tat Indian reaction, with each force attempting to outmanoeuver the other. However, despite the escalating nature of the dispute, the two forces withheld from engaging each other directly.[2]

Chinese attention was diverted for a time by the military activity of the Nationalists on Taiwan, but on 23 June the U.S. assured China that a Nationalist invasion would not be permitted.[31] China's heavy artillery facing Taiwan could then be moved to Tibet.[32] It took China six to eight months to gather the resources needed for the war, according to Anil Athale, author of the official Indian history.[32] The Chinese sent a large quantity of non-military supplies to Tibet through the Indian port of Calcutta.[32]
1101621130_400.jpg

 
.
the Mao was so nice to Indians even after China completely defeated the aggressors,we gave back all their equipments seized by us and my great uncle was demoted just for using captured Indian trucks to move cannons.(cause many of our own trucks broke down due to the harsh terrain)the policy was crazy,not only those weapons and equipments had to be given back to Indians but also you were not allowed to use them after capturing them.they'd got to be brand new in mint condition when returned.
 
.
The current issue has to do with China nullifying its prior commitments to international laws and treaties.

You're the first Chinese to ever mention "encirclement" to me. I know it was bandied about prior to 1971 but of course Nixon and Kissinger and their successors worked hard to alleviate Chinese anxieties - a little too much, it seems.

It's been natural for nations experiencing the burgeoning strength of industrialization to consider imperialism. I'd like to think the Chinese will be wiser and avoid following the errors of the Japanese, British, Germans, and Dutch. But maybe not.

China are no different - there has been lots of chest thumping by the PLA and Chinese media , their arm chair Generals and TV Admirals are threatening to nuke Australia , destroying Japan in 30 minutes and mention America will run like rabbits in war also the possibility and threat of war with nations around the region mainly Philippines and Vietnam.

I don't think these comment are amusement to nations around the region , like its used to amuse the Chinese audience , nevertheless I don't believe china can afford a conflict and the world has moved on from imperial expansionist idea , unless Chinese want to rewind the clock.

Peaceful rise of China is as dead as a dodo - don't know if anybody believe this anymore
 
.
The current issue has to do with China nullifying its prior commitments to international laws and treaties.

You're the first Chinese to ever mention "encirclement" to me. I know it was bandied about prior to 1971 but of course Nixon and Kissinger and their successors worked hard to alleviate Chinese anxieties - a little too much, it seems.

It's been natural for nations experiencing the burgeoning strength of industrialization to consider imperialism. I'd like to think the Chinese will be wiser and avoid following the errors of the Japanese, British, Germans, and Dutch. But maybe not.
China did not nullify any commitment to international law. When we signed the UNCLOS, there were two separate documents. One dealt with the boundaries of the territorial water and EEZ etc, and the other dealt with UN court arbitration in case of dispute. We did not sign the second document, like vast majority of countries (Philippines included at the time). Thus, the UN court has no juristiction over us. Second, the PRC maintained the same claim to territories since 1949, and have even settled for less. The previous KMT government claims a much larger area than current PRC. The only difference is we now have the economic and military strength to enforce our borders.

As far as encirclements go, for a time period United States did ease off of it. However, it was not because they were kind, but because they needed China as an ally against Soviet Union. As soon as the USSR was starting to break apart, you redoubled the effort again, though delayed by your War on Terror for about a decade. That's fine, since we are competitors. However, don't expect us to not to take steps to counter your efforts.

Now your bit on imperialism is just funny. How many countries did you invade and how many governments did you topple? Who maintains military bases in over 70 countries? While we are no angels, do look in the mirror next time you point finger at us about imperialism.

China are no different - there has been lots of chest thumping by the PLA and Chinese media , their arm chair Generals and TV Admirals are threatening to nuke Australia , destroying Japan in 30 minutes and mention America will run like rabbits in war also the possibility and threat of war with nations around the region mainly Philippines and Vietnam.

I don't think these comment are amusement to nations around the region , like its used to amuse the Chinese audience , nevertheless I don't believe china can afford a conflict and the world has moved on from imperial expansionist idea , unless Chinese want to rewind the clock.

Peaceful rise of China is as dead as a dodo - don't know if anybody believe this anymore
Every country has hawkish voices, and yet we are the threatening ones? How many times has US politicians openly call for military action on camera? The Western world constantly invades and interfere with others, yet you call us the imperialists. The hypocrisy is simply staggering.

You do have one thing right though. Peaceful rise of China is a dead concept. Dead because the West, primarily United States and its Asian bootlickers, chose to make it impossible. While we prefer the peaceful way, we are certainly not going to let you walk all over us.
 
.
China are no different - there has been lots of chest thumping by the PLA and Chinese media , their arm chair Generals and TV Admirals are threatening to nuke Australia , destroying Japan in 30 minutes and mention America will run like rabbits in war also the possibility and threat of war with nations around the region mainly Philippines and Vietnam.

I don't think these comment are amusement to nations around the region , like its used to amuse the Chinese audience , nevertheless I don't believe china can afford a conflict and the world has moved on from imperial expansionist idea , unless Chinese want to rewind the clock.

Peaceful rise of China is as dead as a dodo - don't know if anybody believe this anymore
Yes, we are rewinding the clock. The Chinese empire is back with a vengeance like the Mongol Yuan empire with ~300 megatons of nuclear deterrence. Don't say Napoleon didn't warn you.
 
.
Yes, we are rewinding the clock. The Chinese empire is back with a vengeance like the Mongol Yuan empire with ~300 megatons of nuclear deterrence. Don't say Napoleon didn't warn you.
No we're not. We're only enforcing the territorial claim we enacted in our constitution in 1949. In more than 60 years, those proclaimed borders did not increase an inch.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom