US discusses China’s ‘assertiveness’ with India

[Jackdaws]

There is a big difference between suzerainty and sovereignty - it is one thing to accept Chinese suzerainty over Tibet, quite another to accept its sovereignty which no one did when China unilaterally invaded Tibet.

 

[CardSharp]

There is a big difference between suzerainty and sovereignty - it is one thing to accept Chinese suzerainty over Tibet, quite another to accept its sovereignty which no one did when China unilaterally invaded Tibet.

Nation state borders is a modern invention. A lot shakier claims have been made for modern borders than suzerainty or feudal fealty. Tibet couldn't adapt in a modern world in the 30 years of relative autonomy it enjoyed and it lost its independent status.

Let's agree to disagree. I'm not going to dwell on our differences of opinion on what is an essentially a moot point. Tibet is part of China, no other nation dispute this status officially, demographics and cultural change will take care of the rest before long.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Tibet is part of China, no other nation dispute this status officially, demographics and cultural change will take care of the rest before long.

That's right, not one single country in the entire world regards Tibet as a sovereign nation.

And Jack Daws, why are we even talking about Tibet in this thread? Can you at least try to make your China bashing somewhat relevant to the thread at hand?

 

[Jackdaws]

That's right, not one single country in the entire world regards Tibet as a sovereign nation.

And Jack Daws, why are we even talking about Tibet in this thread? Can you at least try to make your China bashing somewhat relevant to the thread at hand?

You should pose that query to the ladyboy from Thailand who brought in the historical angle to the debate.

I am not bashing China - I merely pointing out facts and explaining the difference between concepts like suzerainty and sovereignty. Today every govt. officially recognized Tibet as part of China - even the Tibetan govt. in exile - but when Tibet was invaded by China not one country accepted it as part of China.

 

[CardSharp]

You should pose that query to the ladyboy from Thailand who brought in the historical angle to the debate.

I am not bashing China - I merely pointing out facts and explaining the difference between concepts like suzerainty and sovereignty. Today every govt. officially recognized Tibet as part of China - even the Tibetan govt. in exile - but when Tibet was invaded by China not one country accepted it as part of China.

I really don't want to start this fruitless debate again but please show me historical documents from the time that indicate this. In an informed debate, statements like this need to be supported by reliable sourcing.

(side note, America in 1944 sure thought Tibet was a part of the Republic of China)

And please no name calling, ignore trolls (don't call anyone a ladyboy)

 

[Jackdaws]

I really don't want to start this fruitless debate again but please show me historical documents from the time that indicate this. In an informed debate, statements like this need to be supported by reliable sourcing.

(side note, America in 1944 sure thought Tibet was a part of the Republic of China)
YouTube - Tibet is part of China? A US government 1944 film

And please no name calling, ignore trolls (don't call anyone a ladyboy)

If Tibet was not independent and a part of China - why did China need to sign this Treaty?

Tibet Justice Center - Legal Materials on Tibet - China - Seventeen-Point Plan for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet (1951) [p.182]

Also how do you explain the Battle at Chamdo - between the PLA and the Tibetan forces?

 

[CardSharp]

If Tibet was not independent and a part of China - why did China need to sign this Treaty?

Tibet Justice Center - Legal Materials on Tibet - China - Seventeen-Point Plan for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet (1951) [p.182]

Also how do you explain the Battle at Chamdo - between the PLA and the Tibetan forces?

You're wasting my time.

The first line of the treaty reads

The Tibetan nationality is one of the nationalities with a long history within the boundaries of China and, like many other nationalities, it has done its glorious duty in the course of the creation and development of the great motherland.

and the official position of the Chinese government.

China is a united and multi-national country, which is also one of the most populous ones in the world. At present, there are 1.3 billion people from 56 nationalities in China.

The nationalities in China include: Han, Mongolian, Hui, Tibetan, Uygur, Miao, Yi, Zhuang, Bouyei, Korean, Manchu, Dong, Yao, Bai, Tujia, Hani, Kazakh, Dai, Li, Lisu, Va, She, Gaoshan, Lahu, Shui, Dongxiang, Naxi, Jingpo, Kirgiz, Tu, Dahur, Mulao, Qiang, Bulang, Sala, Maonan, Gelo, Sibo, Achang, Pumi, Tajik, Nu, Ozbek, Russian, Owenke, Deang, Baoan, Yugu, Jing, Tartar, Dulong, Oroqen, Hezhe, Monba, Luoba, Jinuo. In addition, there are a few people from unidentified nationalities in China.

Enough of you.

 

[Jackdaws]

You're wasting my time.

The first line of the treaty reads


and the official position of the Chinese government.


Enough of you.

Enough of me? Too difficult to gulp the truth? So does China have such a Treaty with the other 55 nationalities as well? And what is their equivalent of the Dalai Lama? And what is their equivalent of the Battle of Chamko?

 

[siegecrossbow]

Enough of me? Too difficult to gulp the truth? So does China have such a Treaty with the other 55 nationalities as well? And what is their equivalent of the Dalai Lama? And what is their equivalent of the Battle of Chamko?

There is a difference between ethnic groups and nationalities. China does not belong to the Han Chinese along but also our minority brothers and sisters. Just as there are different ethnic groups in the U.S., Russia, and India, there are different ethnic groups in China. What treaty does India have with the hundreds of different ethnic groups?

 

[CardSharp]

Enough of me? Too difficult to gulp the truth? So does China have such a Treaty with the other 55 nationalities as well? And what is their equivalent of the Dalai Lama? And what is their equivalent of the Battle of Chamko?

Enough of you means enough of you. I am a scientist and a rationalist at heart, I believe in the religion of evidence and logic. You have wasted my time and presented me with neither. Your twisted little world holds no interest for me.

 

[Molawchai]

Enough of me? Too difficult to gulp the truth? So does China have such a Treaty with the other 55 nationalities as well? And what is their equivalent of the Dalai Lama? And what is their equivalent of the Battle of Chamko?

Give it up Indian, you know why the Chinese members getting sick and tired of you? cos you are a nobody from India, lack the basic common sense in the real world, like your beloved late PM said: "there are no place for a weak nation", it does imply to their citizens too, as long as the world which including your GOI recognize tibet is part of China, case close, as simple as that.
PS, name calling only show you were beaten badly in a debate

 

[siegecrossbow]

US discusses China’s ‘assertiveness’ with India

New Delhi, Sep 9 (IANS) Amid concern in India over recent Chinese assertiveness, the US Thursday said it was keeping a watch on increasing Chinese activities in South China Sea and shared a common goal of making Beijing a constructive contributor to regional security.

The chief of the US Pacific Command, Admiral Robert F. Willard, also underlined the growing threat of Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and said the US was looking to expand cooperation with India to tackle the terror network.

“Our common goal is to ensure China makes a constructive contributor to regional security,” Willard, who commands all US forces in the Asia-Pacific region, told reporters here.

He said China’s activities in the region and its intentions were among the issues that were discussed between him and Indian officials.

Willard met National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao and Defence Secretary Pradeep Kumar. He also met the three service chiefs Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik, Admiral Nirmal Verma and General V.K. Singh.

The two sides reviewed the growing India-US defence relationship and discussed ways to expand it further ahead of US President Barack Obama’s visit to India in November.

“India-US relationship has matured into a strategic dialogue,” he said.

Admiral Willard’s visit comes soon after a Pentagon report on the military capabilities of China, which says the 2.25-million strong People’s Liberation Army has moved “more advanced and survivable” solid-fuelled CSS-5 nuclear-capable ballistic missiles closer to the borders with India “to improve regional deterrence”.

China is also developing contingency plans to move airborne troops into the region, says the report.

The China issue is likely to figure in discussion when Defence Minister A.K. Antony goes to Washington towards the end of the month.

Relations between India and China came under stress after Beijing denied visa to a senior Indian Army general on grounds that his command included Jammu and Kashmir. India has also voiced concern over the reported presence of 7,000-11,000 Chinese troops in Gilgit-Baltistan region of Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

“Any change in military relations or military manoeuvres by China will be a cause of concern,” Willard said, adding that it was up to the Indian establishment to deal with the issue.

Willard also underlined the growing counter-terror cooperation between India and the US, saying the centre of gravity of terror networks lies in Pakistan. “The US has been re-evaluating global terror threats. LeT is one of the affiliates of al-Qaeda. We have a broader interest in tackling this threat,” he said.


More at : US discusses China’s ‘assertiveness’ with India US discusses China’s ‘assertiveness’ with India

Glad to see that you are still hard at work!

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/71620-india-discuss-china-us-later-month.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/71500-one-eye-china-india-opens-up-japan-korea.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-defence/71421-another-chinese-provocation-tests-its-sukhois-upgraded-airfields-tibet.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/57157-china-knife-attack-kills-eight.html

You may want to take a break once in a while.

 

[Jackdaws]

Enough of you means enough of you. I am a scientist and a rationalist at heart, I believe in the religion of evidence and logic. You have wasted my time and presented me with neither. Your twisted little world holds no interest for me.

Twisted little world? LOL - come on - I have been very civil. You are the one who pointed out 56 different nationalities in China - it is just rather absurd that you have an agreement like this with only 1 of them i.e. with Tibet. It is a simple question - do you have such an agreement with the others you mentioned - Zhuang, Bouyei, Korean, Manchu, Dong, Yao, Bai, Tujia, Hani, Kazakh, Dai, Li, Lisu, Va, She, Gaoshan, Lahu, Shui, Dongxiang, Naxi, Jingpo, Kirgiz, Tu, Dahur, Mulao etc. ?

So what logical and rational explanation do you have for this - being a scientist?

 

[Jackdaws]

There is a difference between ethnic groups and nationalities. China does not belong to the Han Chinese along but also our minority brothers and sisters. Just as there are different ethnic groups in the U.S., Russia, and India, there are different ethnic groups in China. What treaty does India have with the hundreds of different ethnic groups?

Of course there is a difference between ethnic group and nationalities. I wasn't the one who said that China had many nationalities - it was the scientific man of logic and rationale - CardSharp who did.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

So what logical and rational explanation do you have for this - being a scientist?

Being a scientist, he would say you (obviously) cannot prove a negative.

The burden of proof is on the person who made the positive claim.

So back up this claim you made:

- but when Tibet was invaded by China not one country accepted it as part of China.

We all know that TODAY, not a single country on Earth regards Tibet as a sovereign nation.

So we naturally find it hard to accept that what you wrote above is true. And since you made that claim, the burden of proof is on you to back it up.