India, China Near Pact Aimed at Keeping Lid on Border Tension

[Credo]

I didn't say I wanted them to do anything, I just said it was a good place for anything they might decide to do.

[NxaiPan]

http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2012/results/

When I can see Iraq, Afghanistan all moving up from the last place of this index, maybe many can understand the reasons behind the invasion of western forces in the hope of bringing democracy and a better life for the people there vs the current destruction and disruption to normal life and the governance civil mess.

Sent from my iPod touch using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

It's a nice deflection, but I don't think those countries were invaded to bring democracy and a better life. They were invaded because they presented what some some considered a clear and present danger to the present way of life.

I don't know that the same can be said for India or Tibet.

There anyway aren't going to be any more Vietnam in the jungles of SE Asia wars or Iraq or Afghanistan in the dessert wars, as the US Army is being declassed under the new AirSea Battle strategic war doctrine of the Pentagan, which is supported by the Congress at the initiative of the Obama administration.

The present new AirSea Battle strategy integrates Air Forces and Naval Forces into a synergistic high tech military supported by Marine combat forces. The AirSea Battle strategy puts US Air and Naval forces in a standoff position from the land mass of any continent from which it can use stealth warplanes, stealth warships, missiles, stealth submarine forces. The Army is declassed to a support role of cleaning up and occupying territory already neutralized by the AirSea Battle war plan.

The AirSea Battle strategic doctrine applies to either a global war or to a single particular battle. It includes cyberwarfare, electromagnetic laser and pulsing warfare, inner space warfare and other electronic means of warfare.

Each India and the CCP-PRC continue to have the Army as their primary military force which continues to consume up to half of each country's military budget and resources. Each government, however, is moving more towards air and naval warfare, just not to the extent the United States is moving in that direction.

The CCP-PRC is further along than is India in creating an architecture of A2/AD defense systems combined with missile based offensive capabilities. A2/AD refers to the modern high tech missile defense systems intended to deny access to the air and sea areas, respectively, off the coasts of each country - Anti-Access, Area Denial.

In India and in the CCP-PRC, transforming to A2/AD from having the army consume half the military budget is to turn the Titanic, whereas in the United States it's a matter of bringing in a couple of new computers.

The Pentagon's new strategic doctrine is that there are no more land wars - that there are, in a manner of speaking, only star wars.

What has this waffle got to do with the topic? Rather than going down the armchair expert/Monday morning quarterback routine, why not be grateful that steps are being taken to lower tensions in at least one part of the world.

PS love the idea of dessert wars though! Cream pie anyone?

Edited October 28, 2013 by NxaiPan

[Credo]

True. It's a good thing they are trying to get it sorted out.

[LawrenceChee]

True.   It's a good thing they are trying to get it sorted out.   

With almost half of the world population between them, it's good they are focusing on trade and feeding the folks instead of fighting over some mountains and grass patches which no one really wants more than to use as a barrier between the 2

Common sense is always preferred. Pity the arms manufacturers who thought there is another fat year end bonus in sight and another steakhouse entertainment night

Sent from my iPod touch using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[NxaiPan]

True. It's a good thing they are trying to get it sorted out.

With almost half of the world population between them, it's good they are focusing on trade and feeding the folks instead of fighting over some mountains and grass patches which no one really wants more than to use as a barrier between the 2

Common sense is always preferred. Pity the arms manufacturers who thought there is another fat year end bonus in sight and another steakhouse entertainment night

Sent from my iPod touch using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Nehru's comment re the Aksai Chin from 1962 still holds true today when he described it as a "region where not a blade of grass grows".

[folium]

True. It's a good thing they are trying to get it sorted out.

With almost half of the world population between them, it's good they are focusing on trade and feeding the folks instead of fighting over some mountains and grass patches which no one really wants more than to use as a barrier between the 2

Common sense is always preferred. Pity the arms manufacturers who thought there is another fat year end bonus in sight and another steakhouse entertainment night

Sent from my iPod touch using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Just in case people missed it, the agreement between India and China was signed off last week

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-24633991

Both countries have far more important things to be focusing on than ill-defined colonial-era boundaries involving literally godforsaken areas of limited strategic or economic value.

Might even be described as good news.....

[MJP]

When are they all going to realise countries don't actually exist, but are just figments of a mass delusion?

It'd save a lot of suffering.

[Scott]

A post has been deleted:

29) Not to lobby members.

[Publicus]

I agree with Credo that had China done all these earlier ...it would not be such a complex issue as it is today.

The current focus on human rights issue from the west puts China in a bind where it cannot be given the same latitude as some other western powers during their colonial conquests in the pre-google and YouTube days ...

Yes, people to tend view the world from a contemporary perspective. Slavery was generally accepted up until about 150 years ago, now it's not accepted anywhere, though there are still slave-like scenarios in many countries. Similarly, imperialist impulses are not accepted - as they generally were up to a hundred or so years ago. That's part of the reason the take-over of Kuwait by Iraq was such a big deal. Too bad for China, the world won't stand by as it continues to try and grab territory. Perhaps that realization (by Chinese leaders) was a factor in why their authorities chose to be step back and adopt a reasonable approach re; their border spats with India.

And yet as the world see China manages the dispute with India, opening a dialogue and sealing a hotline with Vietnam and even today the forum agreeing on the importance of looking at similarities rather than allow the media to portray the quarrel between Japan / China over the disputed islands ...they still get no credit.

It's diplomacy, patience and talking at the lower levels that keep it open while the leaders spit it out at each other to keep the nationalists happy.

Perhaps there is a thing or two the world can learn from China.

It is taking its own stance and resolving its own issues with its neighbor at its own time and not at the timetable of the west.

Sent from my iPod touch using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The land border situation hasn't changed。

The two sides still distrust one another。Beijing has 300,000 troops on its side of the border while India recently created a new mountain infantry corps to spearhead Indian forces on its side.

And Vietnam just bought another submarine，which isn't going to be used to defend itself against any democracy。Vietnam has contracted offshore exploration rights to India。Beijing had warned Vietnam not to make that offer， and for India not to accept the offer，sounding even more bellicose and belligerent than ever。India told Beijing to bugger off and Beijing's been quiet since。

India supports the Philippines in the territorial beef begun by the CCP-PRC。While the Indian PM was being wined and dined in Beijing last week， his foreign minister was simultaneously visiting the Phils signing mutual trade and defense agreements， to include making the CCP livid by recognizing the name West Philippine Sea in areas within the Phils 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone Beijing calls the South China Sea and its own sovereign sea

Some certain people wear rose colored glasses。They pronounce and repeat their pronunciations that everything's fine, no problem, it's the Asian way, they really love peace, hold no grudges, let byegones be byegones, only Asians understand etc etc.

(After I get the new Windows installed and I'm back online，you and I can discuss this more.）

[Credo]

So China is willing to forego this windswept, mountainous area for some bigger fish in the S. China Sea?

[Publicus]

So China is willing to forego this windswept, mountainous area for some bigger fish in the S. China Sea?

I think you know that with 300,000 troops stationed permanently at the border of India the CCP wants it all。

Have you ever known of a communist or fascist regime of dictatorship that didn't include the compelling ideology of its inherent superiority and its concomitant certainty that its destiny and rightful place is that of world conquest and supreme rule？

The CCP is infected by this same ideology and malady, ideology being a brain disease to begin with.

Add to that the mental and personality disorders incubated by China's 5000 year old history and Middle Kingdom complex - which views the Johhnie Come Lately USA as a pimple on the arse of history - and you have the Chinese Communist Party and the PRC as the wave of the future.

Another wave of the future syndrome for us to have to deal with.

The elites of India have been around a while too, and are well aware of this reality. India consequently is proceeding with caution. It makes nice to Beijing while simultaneously preparing for and expecting the worst. Hence India's new longer range missile that for the first time can reach Beijing and Shanghai if and when retaliation becomes required.

Japan PM Shinzo Abe recently addressed the Indian parliament to advocate a "Democracy Diamond“ from Japan to Hawaii to Australia，to India，through Asean, Taiwan. Abe didn't pull this strategic concept out of a hat, or out of the blue. Abe conceived it because of motivation, reasons, a distinct rationale and purpose - the CCP and its belligerence, its bellicosity, its recent aggressions, which to date have been mild compared to Beijing's Grand Plan.

Sorry about that but reality does bite.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Publicus

[NxaiPan]

So China is willing to forego this windswept, mountainous area for some bigger fish in the S. China Sea?

I think you know that with 300,000 troops stationed permanently at the border of India the CCP wants it all。

Have you ever known of a communist or fascist regime of dictatorship that didn't include the compelling ideology of its inherent superiority and its concomitant certainty that its destiny and rightful place is that of world conquest and supreme rule？

The CCP is infected by this same ideology and malady, ideology being a brain disease to begin with.

Add to that the mental and personality disorders incubated by China's 5000 year old history and Middle Kingdom complex - which views the Johhnie Come Lately USA as a pimple on the arse of history - and you have the Chinese Communist Party and the PRC as the wave of the future.

Another wave of the future syndrome for us to have to deal with.

The elites of India have been around a while too, and are well aware of this reality. India consequently is proceeding with caution. It makes nice to Beijing while simultaneously preparing for and expecting the worst. Hence India's new longer range missile that for the first time can reach Beijing and Shanghai if and when retaliation becomes required.

Japan PM Shinzo Abe recently addressed the Indian parliament to advocate a "Democracy Diamond“ from Japan to Hawaii to Australia，to India，through Asean, Taiwan. Abe didn't pull this strategic concept out of a hat, or out of the blue. Abe conceived it because of motivation, reasons, a distinct rationale and purpose - the CCP and its belligerence, its bellicosity, its recent aggressions, which to date have been mild compared to Beijing's Grand Plan.

Sorry about that but reality does bite.

So in your "reality" China intends to start a war with India and in the S China Sea?

Why?

How would China benefit from either scenario?

[Publicus]

So China is willing to forego this windswept, mountainous area for some bigger fish in the S. China Sea?

I think you know that with 300,000 troops stationed permanently at the border of India the CCP wants it all。

Have you ever known of a communist or fascist regime of dictatorship that didn't include the compelling ideology of its inherent superiority and its concomitant certainty that its destiny and rightful place is that of world conquest and supreme rule？

The CCP is infected by this same ideology and malady, ideology being a brain disease to begin with.

Add to that the mental and personality disorders incubated by China's 5000 year old history and Middle Kingdom complex - which views the Johhnie Come Lately USA as a pimple on the arse of history - and you have the Chinese Communist Party and the PRC as the wave of the future.

Another wave of the future syndrome for us to have to deal with.

The elites of India have been around a while too, and are well aware of this reality. India consequently is proceeding with caution. It makes nice to Beijing while simultaneously preparing for and expecting the worst. Hence India's new longer range missile that for the first time can reach Beijing and Shanghai if and when retaliation becomes required.

Japan PM Shinzo Abe recently addressed the Indian parliament to advocate a "Democracy Diamond“ from Japan to Hawaii to Australia，to India，through Asean, Taiwan. Abe didn't pull this strategic concept out of a hat, or out of the blue. Abe conceived it because of motivation, reasons, a distinct rationale and purpose - the CCP and its belligerence, its bellicosity, its recent aggressions, which to date have been mild compared to Beijing's Grand Plan.

Sorry about that but reality does bite.

So in your "reality" China intends to start a war with India and in the S China Sea?

Why?

How would China benefit from either scenario?

It's not a matter of wanting to start a war in the present time.

The clear and present danger the CCP Boyz in Beijing pose is that they are klutzes who already have initiated their Neighbor From Hell policies in the SCS and against Japan over the Senkaku Islands and Islets.

Klutzes who are aggressive, bellicose, belligerent, are dangerous per se. Miscalculation is the great danger of the present Neighbor From Hell policies initiated by the CCP.

Sun Tzu they ain't.

Someone wrote the other day that the only thing more dangerous than a rising PRC is a faltering CCP, which what the world presently has.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Publicus

[Publicus]

I agree with Credo that had China done all these earlier ...it would not be such a complex issue as it is today.

The current focus on human rights issue from the west puts China in a bind where it cannot be given the same latitude as some other western powers during their colonial conquests in the pre-google and YouTube days ...

Sent from my iPod touch using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The increase in democratic governments resulted in the decline and the demise of colonialism.

Colonialism itself was the creation of absolute monarchy and the exclusive ruling elites associated with the era of absolute monarchy. China has been an imperial continental empire for the past 2500 years. The CCP-PRC is now globalizing the concept.

By the time the CCP-PRC was founded, India had just had a peaceful revolution against colonialism to become a democratic republic with democratic values up to the present, to include human rights.

Human Rights both conceptually and in daily practice originated in democratic societies, cultures, governments.

While decolonization was occurring and while the democratic concept and practice of Human Rights was developing, the CCP-PRC invaded Tibet and seized control of it by military force, in 1949.

In the same year the CCP-PRC invaded East Turkistan and by military force annexed it to become the Xin Jiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the CCP-PRC thereby extending the western border of the CCP-PRC deep into central Asia.

The CCP is an equal opportunity contemporary colonizer, i.e., the Tibetans are Asian Buddhists, the Uyghurs are Eurasian Muslims.

Moreover, each occupation by military invasion was a huge land grab that substantially and significantly extended the area that is now the westernmost CCP-PRC. Military invasion, conquest and occupation is the Old World way to grab a massive amount of natural resources while shoving aside the human resources native to the place.

The Chinese thus have been running against the tide of history for more than 200 years, to include the absolute (and now ancient) belief in dictatorship and rule by an autocracy and of elites. The present dynasty of dictators, the CCP, are emperors in business suits. They are a young dynasty and thus a very nervous one.

Indeed, the CCP is at the point at which dictatorship in the contemporary world maxes out, either to burn out or to collapse of its own dead weight, which is roughly at 75 years.

The CCP-PRC was founded in 1949 so, hmmm, let's see, in years that would be.........

Edited November 8, 2013 by Publicus

[folium]

I agree with Credo that had China done all these earlier ...it would not be such a complex issue as it is today.

The current focus on human rights issue from the west puts China in a bind where it cannot be given the same latitude as some other western powers during their colonial conquests in the pre-google and YouTube days ...

Sent from my iPod touch using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The increase in democratic governments resulted in the decline and the demise of colonialism.

Colonialism itself was the creation of absolute monarchy and the exclusive ruling elites associated with the era of absolute monarchy. China has been an imperial continental empire for the past 2500 years. The CCP-PRC is now globalizing the concept.

By the time the CCP-PRC was founded, India had just had a peaceful revolution against colonialism to become a democratic republic with democratic values up to the present, to include human rights.

Human Rights both conceptually and in daily practice originated in democratic societies, cultures, governments.

While decolonization was occurring and while the democratic concept and practice of Human Rights was developing, the CCP-PRC invaded Tibet and seized control of it by military force, in 1949.

In the same year the CCP-PRC invaded East Turkistan and by military force annexed it to become the Xin Jiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the CCP-PRC thereby extending the western border of the CCP-PRC deep into central Asia.

The CCP is an equal opportunity contemporary colonizer, i.e., the Tibetans are Asian Buddhists, the Uyghurs are Eurasian Muslims.

Moreover, each occupation by military invasion was a huge land grab that substantially and significantly extended the area that is now the westernmost CCP-PRC. Military invasion, conquest and occupation is the Old World way to grab a massive amount of natural resources while shoving aside the human resources native to the place.

The Chinese thus have been running against the tide of history for more than 200 years, to include the absolute (and now ancient) belief in dictatorship and rule by an autocracy and of elites. The present dynasty of dictators, the CCP, are emperors in business suits. They are a young dynasty and thus a very nervous one.

Indeed, the CCP is at the point at which dictatorship in the contemporary world maxes out, either to burn out or to collapse of its own dead weight, which is roughly at 75 years.

The CCP-PRC was founded in 1949 so, hmmm, let's see, in years that would be.........

The increase in democratic governments resulted in the decline and the demise of colonialism.

Colonialism itself was the creation of absolute monarchy and the exclusive ruling elites associated with the era of absolute monarchy. China has been an imperial continental empire for the past 2500 years. The CCP-PRC is now globalizing the concept.

WW2 and the Atlantic Charter (with its emphasis to "respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live"), were probably far more important than the spread of democracy in the story of de-colonization. Initial US support for decolonization in SE Asia soon faded once the realpolitik of the Cold War really kicked in, and the French campains in Indochina and Algeria raised few hackles in DC, while interventions in Iran 1953 and Guatemala 1954 were Langley led operations.

Neo-colonialism is the art of gaining traction over countries without physical occupation, and while China is currently giving this a shot, the blueprint was written by the US government, see Monroe Doctrine for an early example.

By the time the CCP-PRC was founded, India had just had a peaceful revolution against colonialism to become a democratic republic with democratic values up to the present, to include human rights.

While decolonization was occurring and while the democratic concept and practice of Human Rights was developing, the CCP-PRC invaded Tibet and seized control of it by military force, in 1949.

In the same year the CCP-PRC invaded East Turkistan and by military force annexed it to become the Xin Jiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the CCP-PRC thereby extending the western border of the CCP-PRC deep into central Asia.

The CCP is an equal opportunity contemporary colonizer, i.e., the Tibetans are Asian Buddhists, the Uyghurs are Eurasian Muslims.

Moreover, each occupation by military invasion was a huge land grab that substantially and significantly extended the area that is now the westernmost CCP-PRC. Military invasion, conquest and occupation is the Old World way to grab a massive amount of natural resources while shoving aside the human resources native to the place.

India's "peaceful revolution" needs to be seen through the prism of the disastrous partition in 1947 that saw the displacement of 15million and the murder of up to 1million, plus the less than peaceful antics of the INA that fought with the Japanese against the Allies in WW2.

India has hardly ducked the chance for military-led land grabs, annexing by force Hyderabad province in 1948, plus the disastrous annexation of muslim-majority Kashmir in 1947, an issue that festers to this day. There was also the 1961 military invasions of the Portuguese possessions of Goa, Daman and Diu which were contrary to any international law, but disappeared in the fog of the Cold War. Nehru's naive Forward Policy in respect of Arunachal Pradesh, moving troops north of the McMahon Line, helped trigger the 1962 Sino-Indian conflict. More recently the intervention of the Indian Army in the Sri Lankan Civil War from 1987-90 saw highlights such as the murder of almost 100 civilians by the Indian military in the Teaching Hospital of Jaffna and the subsequent murder of India's Prime Minister (Rajiv Gandhi) by the LTTE in 1991.

Tibet was invaded by China in 1951 not 1949.

"East Turkistan" is a politically charged term originally conceived by the Soviets to forment separatism in the 1930's in the extreme western periphery of Xinjiang. A second "East Turkistan" (again backed by the Soviets) arose at the end of the Chinese Civil War located in NW Xinjiang. Xinjiang province was largely occupied by KMT forces who surrendered to the PLA in 1949 with little resistance. Xinjiang had been a formal province of China since 1884. "East Turkistan" is now a term used by Uighur separatists to cover the entire Xinjiang province.

Your accusation that "Military invasion, conquest and occupation is the Old World way to grab a massive amount of natural resources while shoving aside the human resources native to the place" is an accusation that could be addressed not only against China but also (somewhat unfairly) against the US in relation to some fairly recent conflicts, especially in the Middle East.

While these comments may be perceived as US bashing by some, it is more a case of removing the rose-tinted lenses and seeing that China, while far from perfect, is not alone in undertaking self-interested, unpleasant actions to further the national agenda.

[NxaiPan]

I agree with Credo that had China done all these earlier ...it would not be such a complex issue as it is today.

The current focus on human rights issue from the west puts China in a bind where it cannot be given the same latitude as some other western powers during their colonial conquests in the pre-google and YouTube days ...

Sent from my iPod touch using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The increase in democratic governments resulted in the decline and the demise of colonialism.

Colonialism itself was the creation of absolute monarchy and the exclusive ruling elites associated with the era of absolute monarchy. China has been an imperial continental empire for the past 2500 years. The CCP-PRC is now globalizing the concept.

By the time the CCP-PRC was founded, India had just had a peaceful revolution against colonialism to become a democratic republic with democratic values up to the present, to include human rights.

Human Rights both conceptually and in daily practice originated in democratic societies, cultures, governments.

While decolonization was occurring and while the democratic concept and practice of Human Rights was developing, the CCP-PRC invaded Tibet and seized control of it by military force, in 1949.

In the same year the CCP-PRC invaded East Turkistan and by military force annexed it to become the Xin Jiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the CCP-PRC thereby extending the western border of the CCP-PRC deep into central Asia.

The CCP is an equal opportunity contemporary colonizer, i.e., the Tibetans are Asian Buddhists, the Uyghurs are Eurasian Muslims.

Moreover, each occupation by military invasion was a huge land grab that substantially and significantly extended the area that is now the westernmost CCP-PRC. Military invasion, conquest and occupation is the Old World way to grab a massive amount of natural resources while shoving aside the human resources native to the place.

The Chinese thus have been running against the tide of history for more than 200 years, to include the absolute (and now ancient) belief in dictatorship and rule by an autocracy and of elites. The present dynasty of dictators, the CCP, are emperors in business suits. They are a young dynasty and thus a very nervous one.

Indeed, the CCP is at the point at which dictatorship in the contemporary world maxes out, either to burn out or to collapse of its own dead weight, which is roughly at 75 years.

The CCP-PRC was founded in 1949 so, hmmm, let's see, in years that would be.........

The increase in democratic governments resulted in the decline and the demise of colonialism.

Colonialism itself was the creation of absolute monarchy and the exclusive ruling elites associated with the era of absolute monarchy. China has been an imperial continental empire for the past 2500 years. The CCP-PRC is now globalizing the concept.

WW2 and the Atlantic Charter (with its emphasis to "respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live"), were probably far more important than the spread of democracy in the story of de-colonization. Initial US support for decolonization in SE Asia soon faded once the realpolitik of the Cold War really kicked in, and the French campains in Indochina and Algeria raised few hackles in DC, while interventions in Iran 1953 and Guatemala 1954 were Langley led operations.

Neo-colonialism is the art of gaining traction over countries without physical occupation, and while China is currently giving this a shot, the blueprint was written by the US government, see Monroe Doctrine for an early example.

By the time the CCP-PRC was founded, India had just had a peaceful revolution against colonialism to become a democratic republic with democratic values up to the present, to include human rights.

While decolonization was occurring and while the democratic concept and practice of Human Rights was developing, the CCP-PRC invaded Tibet and seized control of it by military force, in 1949.

In the same year the CCP-PRC invaded East Turkistan and by military force annexed it to become the Xin Jiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the CCP-PRC thereby extending the western border of the CCP-PRC deep into central Asia.

The CCP is an equal opportunity contemporary colonizer, i.e., the Tibetans are Asian Buddhists, the Uyghurs are Eurasian Muslims.

Moreover, each occupation by military invasion was a huge land grab that substantially and significantly extended the area that is now the westernmost CCP-PRC. Military invasion, conquest and occupation is the Old World way to grab a massive amount of natural resources while shoving aside the human resources native to the place.

India's "peaceful revolution" needs to be seen through the prism of the disastrous partition in 1947 that saw the displacement of 15million and the murder of up to 1million, plus the less than peaceful antics of the INA that fought with the Japanese against the Allies in WW2.

India has hardly ducked the chance for military-led land grabs, annexing by force Hyderabad province in 1948, plus the disastrous annexation of muslim-majority Kashmir in 1947, an issue that festers to this day. There was also the 1961 military invasions of the Portuguese possessions of Goa, Daman and Diu which were contrary to any international law, but disappeared in the fog of the Cold War. Nehru's naive Forward Policy in respect of Arunachal Pradesh, moving troops north of the McMahon Line, helped trigger the 1962 Sino-Indian conflict. More recently the intervention of the Indian Army in the Sri Lankan Civil War from 1987-90 saw highlights such as the murder of almost 100 civilians by the Indian military in the Teaching Hospital of Jaffna and the subsequent murder of India's Prime Minister (Rajiv Gandhi) by the LTTE in 1991.

Tibet was invaded by China in 1951 not 1949.

"East Turkistan" is a politically charged term originally conceived by the Soviets to forment separatism in the 1930's in the extreme western periphery of Xinjiang. A second "East Turkistan" (again backed by the Soviets) arose at the end of the Chinese Civil War located in NW Xinjiang. Xinjiang province was largely occupied by KMT forces who surrendered to the PLA in 1949 with little resistance. Xinjiang had been a formal province of China since 1884. "East Turkistan" is now a term used by Uighur separatists to cover the entire Xinjiang province.

Your accusation that "Military invasion, conquest and occupation is the Old World way to grab a massive amount of natural resources while shoving aside the human resources native to the place" is an accusation that could be addressed not only against China but also (somewhat unfairly) against the US in relation to some fairly recent conflicts, especially in the Middle East.

While these comments may be perceived as US bashing by some, it is more a case of removing the rose-tinted lenses and seeing that China, while far from perfect, is not alone in undertaking self-interested, unpleasant actions to further the national agenda.

"Emperors in business suits".... sounds like a rerun of Barbarians at the Gate, Bonfire of the Vanities, Chuck Prince's "still dancing" 2008 riposte, "too big to fail" etc, etc

You could argue that the US is also a fairly young dynasty and currently pretty nervous about its global position. Quite unnecessarily IMHO. If the US stepped up, many global issues could be resolved, the last thing anyone needs now is a relapse into a disastrous phase of isolationism.

[Publicus]

For the record, the poster 'folium' has been on my Ignore function for some time now.

I noticed his post of 09 Nov 05:51 only because it is quoted by the poster NxaiPan Today 05:19 (that's what the times to each post state).

I see that the poster 'folium' in his post ignores Prez Woodrow Wilson and his policy of Self-Determination at the Versailles Treaty Conference of 1919.The World War II Atlantic Charter was a vital turning point of great significance, yes. That I did not mention it or Prez Wilson in my quoted post was my conscious choice and decision.

The poster 'folium' also fails to note the prudence and rational internationalism of the United States in refusing the French request in 1954 for the atom bomb to be used to save the soon thereafter failed French military campaign in Viet Nam (the decisive battle of Điện Biên Phủ).

Some respect would go a long way.

[NxaiPan]

For the record, the poster 'folium' has been on my Ignore function for some time now.

I noticed his post of 09 Nov 05:51 only because it is quoted by the poster NxaiPan Today 05:19 (that's what the times to each post state).

I see that the poster 'folium' in his post ignores Prez Woodrow Wilson and his policy of Self-Determination at the Versailles Treaty Conference of 1919.The World War II Atlantic Charter was a vital turning point of great significance, yes. That I did not mention it or Prez Wilson in my quoted post was my conscious choice and decision.

The poster 'folium' also fails to note the prudence and rational internationalism of the United States in refusing the French request in 1954 for the atom bomb to be used to save the soon thereafter failed French military campaign in Viet Nam (the decisive battle of Điện Biên Phủ).

Some respect would go a long way.

Not sure I intended to be some sort of delivery person! Either ignore someone or not!

Also not sure how my post could precede the time of one I quoted. It looks like the "one you wish to ignore" put their post up at 04:51 and mine was posted at 05:19, perhaps you haven't changed your clock yet!

While on the subject of self-determination, Wilson's passion for this subject led to the untidy break up of the Austro-Habsburg, Ottoman and German empires and the creation of a spineless League of Nations to police the shambles (largely unsupported by a post Woodrow USA). Result was the bundle of issues and conundrums that led to WW2.

As far as I was aware the victory of Mao in the Chinese civil war in 1949 led directly to increasing levels of US support both overt and covert to the French during the 1st Indochina War as fears over communism rapidly trumped principles about colonialism. Why else would the French have dished out in 2005 Legion d'Honneur medals to ex-CIA pilots who had flown multiple missions in support of the French, including air drops at Dien Bien Phu? Don't know about nukes but certainly the US took up the strain post the 1954 Geneva Accords and the initial MAAG sent by Truman in 1950 rapidly escalated to the more well known US full scale deployment to SE Asia.

Meanwhile back in India, the recent agreement re boundaries between India and China may indicate a reluctance to initiate conflict between these two, as it is obviously to neither of their benefit nor to the wider international community. China does seem to enjoy the neo-colonial role, majoring on resource extraction and trade rather than physical possession and does seem to be taking a leaf out of the US playbook in this respect.

[Publicus]

"Also not sure how my post could precede the time of one I quoted. It looks like the "one you wish to ignore" put their post up at 04:51 and mine was posted at 05:19, perhaps you haven't changed your clock yet!"

You refer to my statement from my earlier post that,:

I noticed his post of 09 Nov 05:51 only because it is quoted by the poster NxaiPan Today 05:19 (that's what the times to each post state).

So perhaps you missed reading it, but I myself noted the apparent incongruity of the times assigned to each post, so I dunno why you're trying to take me up on the apparent inconsistency over which I haven't any involvement or control other than to note the strangeness of the times posted by TVF.

Why are you and I wasting space and time with these kind of nonsense remarks and consequent posts? The guy is on Ignore because of this kind of silliness.

[Scott]

Please be civil and stay on topic.

Posts deleted.

[boomerangutang]

China is flexing its muscles along its borders and beyond.... The seas near Japan and Philippines.

There are discussions between India and China re; some stretches of their mutual border. Those discussions may be just window dressing - dealing with easily managed aspects of border disputes.

However, the general trend, for China, is using its weight to expand. It's like a schoolyard bully who, because of his great size, can just lean on anyone who poses a nuisance. His weight won't get fast results that fist-throwing would, but it will prevail over time. Chinese are patient, but they won't do any turn-arounds in their policy aims.

[folium]

China is flexing its muscles along its borders and beyond.... The seas near Japan and Philippines.

There are discussions between India and China re; some stretches of their mutual border. Those discussions may be just window dressing - dealing with easily managed aspects of border disputes.

However, the general trend, for China, is using its weight to expand. It's like a schoolyard bully who, because of his great size, can just lean on anyone who poses a nuisance. His weight won't get fast results that fist-throwing would, but it will prevail over time. Chinese are patient, but they won't do any turn-arounds in their policy aims.

So is it your opinion that the Chinese will eventually look to actually occupy its neighbours or parts of them?

Or is China on the neo-colonial route highlighted by Nxai Pan whereby it exerts influence via trade, presence and possibly bases, similar to the US approach?

The last actual occupations of territory was the Paracel Islands seized from an ailing S.Vietnam in 1974 following a naval battle, and a similar clash in 1988 saw China occupying the Johnson Reef area of the Spratlys.

With China now integrated into the global economy and with plenty of domestic issues to grapple with, see below, is it really in China's interest to "go colonial" rather than just neo? Would it be a Argentina/ Falklands (or Malvinas to keep JT happy) populist move to avert popular discontent re domestic issues?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-24846815

[boomerangutang]

China is flexing its muscles along its borders and beyond.... The seas near Japan and Philippines.

There are discussions between India and China re; some stretches of their mutual border. Those discussions may be just window dressing - dealing with easily managed aspects of border disputes.

However, the general trend, for China, is using its weight to expand. It's like a schoolyard bully who, because of his great size, can just lean on anyone who poses a nuisance. His weight won't get fast results that fist-throwing would, but it will prevail over time. Chinese are patient, but they won't do any turn-arounds in their policy aims.

So is it your opinion that the Chinese will eventually look to actually occupy its neighbours or parts of them?

Or is China on the neo-colonial route highlighted by Nxai Pan whereby it exerts influence via trade, presence and possibly bases, similar to the US approach?

The last actual occupations of territory was the Paracel Islands seized from an ailing S.Vietnam in 1974 following a naval battle, and a similar clash in 1988 saw China occupying the Johnson Reef area of the Spratlys.

With China now integrated into the global economy and with plenty of domestic issues to grapple with, see below, is it really in China's interest to "go colonial" rather than just neo? Would it be a Argentina/ Falklands (or Malvinas to keep JT happy) populist move to avert popular discontent re domestic issues?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-24846815

One thing China has, is a lot of people/specialists, so they can deal with a variety of issues concurrently. It's doubtful China will commandeer territory in the old fashioned way of sending in military - though it may resort to military intervention if all else fails. Additionally, China can exert patience in its land grabs.

It wants prodigious amounts of all resources, and commandeering islands gives access to added fish and minerals/oil.

[Publicus]

I agree with Credo that had China done all these earlier ...it would not be such a complex issue as it is today.

The current focus on human rights issue from the west puts China in a bind where it cannot be given the same latitude as some other western powers during their colonial conquests in the pre-google and YouTube days ...

Yes, people to tend view the world from a contemporary perspective. Slavery was generally accepted up until about 150 years ago, now it's not accepted anywhere, though there are still slave-like scenarios in many countries. Similarly, imperialist impulses are not accepted - as they generally were up to a hundred or so years ago. That's part of the reason the take-over of Kuwait by Iraq was such a big deal. Too bad for China, the world won't stand by as it continues to try and grab territory. Perhaps that realization (by Chinese leaders) was a factor in why their authorities chose to be step back and adopt a reasonable approach re; their border spats with India.

And yet as the world see China manages the dispute with India, opening a dialogue and sealing a hotline with Vietnam and even today the forum agreeing on the importance of looking at similarities rather than allow the media to portray the quarrel between Japan / China over the disputed islands ...they still get no credit.

It's diplomacy, patience and talking at the lower levels that keep it open while the leaders spit it out at each other to keep the nationalists happy.

Perhaps there is a thing or two the world can learn from China.

It is taking its own stance and resolving its own issues with its neighbor at its own time and not at the timetable of the west.

Sent from my iPod touch using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

On Sino-Indian Border, Status-Quo Unacceptable

In 2010 Premier Wen Jiabao raised hackles in Delhi when he admitted the dispute would take “a very long time” to resolve.

“Even if we somehow miraculously get a resolution, we still have problems [with India] in Tibet, in Pakistan, in the Indian Ocean. So why try so hard? It seems every time we try and solve the dispute it only makes things worse,” Ye Hailin, the Deputy Director for South Asia at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences said over the summer.

Privately, Indian diplomats have lamented the two sides are “no closer to a resolution than we were 50 years ago.”

http://thediplomat.com/2013/11/06/on-sino-indian-border-status-quo-unacceptable/comment-page-1/?all=true

As can be seen from the article above, it's well past time to leave Fantasyland behind to have a reality check.

Beijing and Deli have just recently signed a new Border Defense and Cooperation Agreement (BDCA)

Unfortunately, the final text of the BDCA is described by one analyst as being "decidedly uninspiring."

By virtually all accounts the new BDCA brought the two opposing sides no closer to a final settlement and did little to advance the more modest goal of improving border management.

The new BDCA, in short, is a piece of fluff. It simply restates already existing agreements, Already existing agreements have been pathetically insufficient and inadequate for several decades.

Further, despite a 67-fold expansion of bilateral trade between 1998 and 2012, public mistrust between the CCP-PRC and India and Indians is severe. Nearly two-thirds of Chinese had an unfavorable view of India in a 2012 Pew poll, while 73 percent of Indians surveyed in a 2013 Lowy Institute Poll thought war with China was a “big threat.”

Among India’s strategic planners and thinkers, the CCP-PRC has surpassed Pakistan as the country’s principal security threat.

Indeed, India has created a new army Strike Force at the border - India's other three existing army Strike Forces are deployed along the Pakistan border. Beijing has 300,000 troops permanently deployed along the border with another 100,000 close by.

The vacuous BDAC does nothing to alter the present dangerous reality between the CCP-PRC and India with no real or meaningful agreements in sight.

[boomerangutang]

Indian leaders have good reason to be wary of China and its long-range intentions. It's good Indian leaders aren't so easily dazzled as, let's say, Warren Buffet, who was invited to China, and gave smiling compliments to everything he saw. A Chinese charm offensive can be quite endearing, if you don't care to see behind the beautiful silk curtain.

[Credo]

What is important to Warren Buffet and what is important to India's leaders are probably quite different. I also think that Mr. Buffet probably sees more than a lot of people think.

[LawrenceChee]

I think everyone is just trying to play the polite card...WB is just giving face value compliments....

[Publicus]

Warren Buffet in the CCP-PRC looked like a billion bucks - green and wrinkled. (Would that I should look so good!)

Yes, it's very true that WB and India have radically different relationships with the CCP-PRC.

For one thing WB is not a nation state.

[folium]

Indian leaders have good reason to be wary of China and its long-range intentions. It's good Indian leaders aren't so easily dazzled as, let's say, Warren Buffet, who was invited to China, and gave smiling compliments to everything he saw. A Chinese charm offensive can be quite endearing, if you don't care to see behind the beautiful silk curtain.

Warren Buffett is no fool and while even he makes mistakes (Dexter Shoes, US Airways), he has a fantastic record of hunting down long term value to the benefit of his shareholders. Betting against Buffett can often be a painful experience (see dotcom boom/bust for more details).

The joys of investing reminds me of an apposite line from a country & western song:

'I've never gone to bed with an ugly woman, but I've sure woke up with a few.'"