China's modern Khans are finishing to the end an action initiated by Kublai Khan--prying open its backdoors to the world through Burma, Pakistan and central Asian republics. His grandfather Genghis Khan had taught him life’s “greatest pleasure (is) to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see their near and dear bathed in tears, to ride their horses, and (to) sleep on the white bellies of their wives and daughters.”
Expansionism is not a novel idea for China. It has been a cornerstone of its foreign policy for millennia. China is seen by its southeast Asian neighbors not simply as a threat to Southeast Asia but to the entire region. They fear Chinese expansionism will give birth to a new Chinese Monroe doctrine-- a foreign policy that would not tolerate intervention by any nation in the affairs of a state in China's neighborhood.
China regards southeast Asia as its sphere of influence. Historically, it has regarded embassies in Beijing as tribute missions. Thanks to Burma giving them a base in the Bay of Bengal, for power projection the Chinese have guaranteed access to Southeast Asia from the west.
When the question of a collective security system for those most vulnerable to the Chinese threat was raised not so long ago, Beijing’s leaders preferred a unilateral approach in a bilateral guise. Beijing rejected outright Australian, Canadian and Japanese proposals for a multilateral Asia pacific security conference.
Expansionism is not a novel idea for China. It has been a cornerstone of its foreign policy for millennia. China is seen by its southeast Asian neighbors not simply as a threat to Southeast Asia but to the entire region. They fear Chinese expansionism will give birth to a new Chinese Monroe doctrine-- a foreign policy that would not tolerate intervention by any nation in the affairs of a state in China's neighborhood.
China regards southeast Asia as its sphere of influence. Historically, it has regarded embassies in Beijing as tribute missions. Thanks to Burma giving them a base in the Bay of Bengal, for power projection the Chinese have guaranteed access to Southeast Asia from the west.
When the question of a collective security system for those most vulnerable to the Chinese threat was raised not so long ago, Beijing’s leaders preferred a unilateral approach in a bilateral guise. Beijing rejected outright Australian, Canadian and Japanese proposals for a multilateral Asia pacific security conference.
15
India didn't even have a border with China in that section until it annexed the Kingdom of Sikkim in 1975. Now it's trying to "protect" Bhutan from China, while sabotaging the Bhutan-China border resolution. See UBC professor Tsering Shakya's article: http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/geopolitics/article/2103601/bhutan-can-sol...
7
Neither did China. Tibet was annexed by China by force.
On the other hand, Sikkim joined India after a public referendum, where 97.5 per cent of population supported abolishing the monarchy and joining India.
On the other hand, Sikkim joined India after a public referendum, where 97.5 per cent of population supported abolishing the monarchy and joining India.
17
No half truth, half lies. Sikkim people are happy indians. And vote in elections in 71%. Yes india and China didn't share border till China dodnt annex and swallow a whole independent nation called tibet. And tibetians sought refuge in india including Dalai lama
16
Tibet is part of China at least from Qing Dynasty(from 1636). Here is the global map published from western world for those time.
https://sites.google.com/site/whapheritage/home/unit-three-1750-1914. Most of the official map at that time will give you the similar map.
Read this article from Washington Post about your so called "public referendum". It is a typical ugly bully behavior.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1982/02/20/sikkimese-mou...
https://sites.google.com/site/whapheritage/home/unit-three-1750-1914. Most of the official map at that time will give you the similar map.
Read this article from Washington Post about your so called "public referendum". It is a typical ugly bully behavior.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1982/02/20/sikkimese-mou...
6
Completely onesided article. Fails to mention that China has been intruding in Indian territory many times and India has politely told china everytime to getout which they did. At the time when Prime Minister Modi met Xi in India, Chines troops came 30miles in Indian territory during the visit which clearly shows china's split tongue when it comes to border issues.
Second, war with china in 1962, a very open minded and friendly Prime minister was in India who wanted peace and did not believed in keeping and army. Not to forget Indian Air force much superior and ready after world war 1 and Indian Navy was not even called in for war. And at a point in the war when Indians and Indian President flew to Assam, and it was clear that India will now pool in all pillars of National power Chinese withdrew immediately for no reason.
Obviously status quo is different now. Young India is peaceful but dauntless cannot be coerced or made to bend by anyone.
Second, war with china in 1962, a very open minded and friendly Prime minister was in India who wanted peace and did not believed in keeping and army. Not to forget Indian Air force much superior and ready after world war 1 and Indian Navy was not even called in for war. And at a point in the war when Indians and Indian President flew to Assam, and it was clear that India will now pool in all pillars of National power Chinese withdrew immediately for no reason.
Obviously status quo is different now. Young India is peaceful but dauntless cannot be coerced or made to bend by anyone.
13
THIS disputed area lands in between Bhutan and China, what Indian doing there.???
6
Bhutan and india share defence treaty. India protects bhutan, when it asks for it. India is on bhutanese land with bhutan's consent. Secondly China wants to cut India's North east territory with mainland india with such move, not happening post China swallowed tibet. So india will naturally be there to defend its and Bhutan's territory.
14
China made a mistake by underestimating the Indian will to oppose Chinese hegemony. Chinese are building naval bases in Indian Ocean, arming two rough nations: Pakistan and North Korea to teeth and ignoring all status quo with its neighbors for few years. Most SE Asian nations are happy to see someone finally stating enough is enough.
Also please remember that the dispute here, if any is between Bhutan and Tibet. (Tibet was occupied forcefully by Chinese and Bhutan remains under Indian protection against Chinese.)
Also please remember that the dispute here, if any is between Bhutan and Tibet. (Tibet was occupied forcefully by Chinese and Bhutan remains under Indian protection against Chinese.)
15
Dash - ummm - most of NK's weapons are based on Soviet weapons. If you don't get that - how can you get everything else?
india has always bullied its neighbors since it indepence. it seperated pakistan, blockaded nepal, annexed sikkim, occupied buhtan, blocked the water to bangladesh, invaded sri lanka, threaten maldives. india has territorial disputs with all of its neighbors, since it has been seeking hegemony in the south asia and the indian ocean.
25
Time for the alleged expert deal-maker in the White House to show us what he's got.
1
That's the problem - we stick our hands in too many hornets nests as it is. The issue is between China and Bhutan. It's not India's business either. Except that truth be told - they like to control their smaller neighbors just as China is accused of.
4
India should militarily drive China out of the disputed territory.
How India confronts China will be instructive for the rest of China's worried neighbors, and how China reacts will affect China's fortunes.
If China backs down or is defeated by India, everyone will challenge China's claims and island-building in the South China Sea.
If China defeats India, every country neighboring China will bolster its defenses and will move closer to the US.
Either way, it is a loss for China.
How India confronts China will be instructive for the rest of China's worried neighbors, and how China reacts will affect China's fortunes.
If China backs down or is defeated by India, everyone will challenge China's claims and island-building in the South China Sea.
If China defeats India, every country neighboring China will bolster its defenses and will move closer to the US.
Either way, it is a loss for China.
15
So potentially millions of people should die just isolate China??? You probably think regime has worked out in the Middle East also..
2
you probably misunderstand the reality: it is India has been bullying his neighbors over the past 50 years. Now India tries to challenge China. This standoff happened not even in any disputed areas b/w India and China. It is in China. India is literally invading China.
It is time for China to say "No" to India and stop its greedy
It is time for China to say "No" to India and stop its greedy
6
List of the countries that have territorial & border disputes with China:
1. Japan: East China Sea, Senkaku & Ryukyu Islands
2. Vietnam: Macclesfield Bank, Parcel Islands, parts of the South China Sea & the Spratly Islands.
3. India: Aksai Chin & Arunachal Pradesh (90K sq km), which China describes as "Southern Tibet"
4. Nepal: Parts of Nepal dating back to the Sino-Nepalese War
5. North Korea: Baekdu Mountain & on occasion all of North Korea on historical grounds
6. The Philippines: Parts of the South China Sea, particularly Scarborough Shoal & the Spratly Islands.
7. Russia: 160,000 square km still unilaterally claimed by China
8. Singapore: Parts of the South China Sea.
9. South Korea: Parts of the East China Sea.
10. Bhutan: Many Bhutanese enclaves in Tibet, namely Cherkip Gompa, Dho, Dungmar, etc. Also Kula Kangri & western Haa District of Bhutan.
11. Taiwan: All of Taiwan
12. Laos: Large areas of Laos on historical precedent
13. Brunei: Spratly Islands.
14. Tajikistan: Large areas based on historical precedent
15. Cambodia: Parts of Cambodia on historical precedent
16. Indonesia: Parts of the South China Sea.
17. Kyrgyzstan: China claims the majority of Kyrgyzstan on the grounds that it was unfairly forced to cede the territory to Russia.
18. Malaysia: Parts of the South China Sea, particularly the Spratly Islands.
19. Mongolia: China claims all of Mongolia on historical precedent
20. Afghanistan: Afghan province of Bahdakhshan
1. Japan: East China Sea, Senkaku & Ryukyu Islands
2. Vietnam: Macclesfield Bank, Parcel Islands, parts of the South China Sea & the Spratly Islands.
3. India: Aksai Chin & Arunachal Pradesh (90K sq km), which China describes as "Southern Tibet"
4. Nepal: Parts of Nepal dating back to the Sino-Nepalese War
5. North Korea: Baekdu Mountain & on occasion all of North Korea on historical grounds
6. The Philippines: Parts of the South China Sea, particularly Scarborough Shoal & the Spratly Islands.
7. Russia: 160,000 square km still unilaterally claimed by China
8. Singapore: Parts of the South China Sea.
9. South Korea: Parts of the East China Sea.
10. Bhutan: Many Bhutanese enclaves in Tibet, namely Cherkip Gompa, Dho, Dungmar, etc. Also Kula Kangri & western Haa District of Bhutan.
11. Taiwan: All of Taiwan
12. Laos: Large areas of Laos on historical precedent
13. Brunei: Spratly Islands.
14. Tajikistan: Large areas based on historical precedent
15. Cambodia: Parts of Cambodia on historical precedent
16. Indonesia: Parts of the South China Sea.
17. Kyrgyzstan: China claims the majority of Kyrgyzstan on the grounds that it was unfairly forced to cede the territory to Russia.
18. Malaysia: Parts of the South China Sea, particularly the Spratly Islands.
19. Mongolia: China claims all of Mongolia on historical precedent
20. Afghanistan: Afghan province of Bahdakhshan
22
That's usually what happens with a large country. You could have easily made that about us and every country in this hemisphere (yes many don't even border us) except Canada. The difference is we just invaded and took or put in who we wanted to. Monroe Doctrine... Manifest Destiny. Do we even know our own history. While you are at it - you can make a similar list for India as well since she was cut loose by the British.
8
What a list of lies here.
6
The only mainland border unresolved is with immature India and Indian colony Bhutan. India has border disputes with all its neighbors including the ones listed between China and India. These countries see China as a big brother to Indian threats.
2
Sad to see so many biased comments to a story that was written with balance. The facts of the case are the land dispute is between Bhutan and China. It has nothing to do with India except that Bhutan is almost a de facto colony of India. Kind of ironic that people are saying China is the bully. Bhutan isn't even "allowed" to negotiate without India being involved.
In any event much of this mess is due to British colonialism into India and incursion into China. Britain stole tea from China and used India to grow it. Britain invaded China and enlisted Indian troops to invade and occupy and humiliate. Prior to that China and India got along as well as two huge neighbors could. They shared huge cultural exchanges through Buddhism. That good will was gone by the time the Brits left. Which leads to another border issue India currently has (strangely some of the other comments claim India gets along well with its neighbors while China doesn't) which is Pakistan. India was ruled by a Muslim empire for centuries and it was one of Indias most prosperous times with the least ethnic strife. Again - the Brits caused the split and now you have India and Pakistan still firing shots (versus just a standoff going on here). Think critically people and don't just go by everyday headlines.
In any event much of this mess is due to British colonialism into India and incursion into China. Britain stole tea from China and used India to grow it. Britain invaded China and enlisted Indian troops to invade and occupy and humiliate. Prior to that China and India got along as well as two huge neighbors could. They shared huge cultural exchanges through Buddhism. That good will was gone by the time the Brits left. Which leads to another border issue India currently has (strangely some of the other comments claim India gets along well with its neighbors while China doesn't) which is Pakistan. India was ruled by a Muslim empire for centuries and it was one of Indias most prosperous times with the least ethnic strife. Again - the Brits caused the split and now you have India and Pakistan still firing shots (versus just a standoff going on here). Think critically people and don't just go by everyday headlines.
21
Well said. Alas, most people will never be able to think critically, otherwise Donald Trump would not have been elected. Fake news, propaganda, and half truths are far more effective than academic research. British-Australian scholar Neville Maxwell has long concluded that India was the aggressor during the 1962 Sino-Indian War, and most scholars agree with him, but how many people are actually aware of that?
3
Nomad - yeah Mr Maxwell got blowback for pointing out the 1962 war was India's fault. But since they are a "democracy" (no matter how dysfunctional) you can't point out wrong doing. I doubt most people reading this even know there was a battle in '62 between India and China.
3
A unified India didn't exist as a single political entity until after the British left. They were a mostly common people ruled as various separate tribes/kingdoms.
4
A little perspective here. Although there are over 190 entities in the United Nations, these two behemoths contain about 35% of the world's population. And they mirror perfectly the belligerent insanity of the homo sapiens species which seems intent on driving itself into extinction.
3
It appears that China likes to push buttons with every one of its neighbors. What the heck is wrong with them!? What a bully of a country.
In this case, a neighbor seems to have decided to push back. Good for them.
In this case, a neighbor seems to have decided to push back. Good for them.
17
India is not Vietnam, Myanmar, or the Philippians. They are not going to be able to get India to submit to its will with merely the threat of force or economic boycotts. The question is how far is China going to take this? Does China have border disputes with Mongolia and Russia? It seems like they have them with the rest of their neighbors. China behaves like someone on the subway or airplane that insists on taking up as much space as possible with no concern for anyone else's personal space.
13
China has far more neighbours than India but has solved all its land disputes, including with Mongolia and Russia, with the only exceptions of India and its "protectorate" Bhutan. India has not solved any of its disputes because of its belligerent attitude, has invaded Goa and annexed Sikkim, and fought four border wars with its neighbours.
8
You are absolutely right. You can not compare mighty India to those countries. India's GDP per capita is much much lower. Not to mention the literacy rate, child mortality, calories intake, employment etc etc. The only statistic in which India bests those countries is the rape rate.
6
Except for China's the land disputes with Japan, the Philippians, Bhutan, Vietnam, Myanmar, S. Korea, North Korea, and several others....you are correct.
8
The Chinese have been pushing around all their neighbors - invading their territories, taking over their land and maritime resources, with scarcely any pushback. One has to wonder whether the main reason behind this is simply to show who is the top dog in Asia.
Now it is India's turn to 'humbly step back'. We'll see how that goes.
Now it is India's turn to 'humbly step back'. We'll see how that goes.
10
India's National Security adviser's visit to Beijing will probably end in an agreement for India to pull back first and then for China to stop the construction.
But whereas India will keep its word, China--based on its egregious violation of Panch Sheel, five principles of peaceful co-existence, Agreement signed in 1954 by Nehru and Chou En Lai--may not.
Perhaps the two should agree to go to the ICJ.
But whereas India will keep its word, China--based on its egregious violation of Panch Sheel, five principles of peaceful co-existence, Agreement signed in 1954 by Nehru and Chou En Lai--may not.
Perhaps the two should agree to go to the ICJ.
4
Because india has such a great track record of respecting other countries' sovereignty? That's probably why the Srilankan Nepalese, Burmese, Buthanees people love and admire India so much? Did I mention Sikhim?
3
It is within China's area not even in any disputed area with India. Don't understand how com China should stop its construction within his own land. India is invading China!
2
India must defend her northeast lands and the pass between. As China and Russia continue in their attempted territorial expansion, other Nations must maintain their own territories and assist others to maintain theirs. Constant pressure is needed to forestall the hegemony of China and Russia, carefully using economic sanctions to convince them of their folly! Should the sanctions not work, perhaps armed conflict is inevitable; in you give an inch to either, they will both take a mile!
10
And how, my dear NRI friend, did India get Sikhim's territory?
4
Resist. Tibet is NOT China. Resist. Or they will swallow us all.
13
Well it's as much China as California and Arizona is the United States. Well actually more so.
3
This is all due to Bhutan's weakness. Bhutan should have the courage like Nepal not to be abused by India. Indian excuse of protecting Bhutan have no more basis as China is not spreading Communism. India use Bhutan to protect AP/S Tibet only.
Bhutan's PM Tsering should make an incognito trip to Beijing to seek an economic deal to counter Indian strangulation on Bhutan.
If Bhutan don't put her foot down on India to withdraw her troops, Bhutan herself will become collateral damage. Think of the disputed area like Diaoyu/Senkaku island. Bhutan is like Okinawa. Chinese military strategists will see the need to attack Bhutan just like the Okinawa scenario to decapitate the Indians inside the disputed area.
So Bhutanese should move quickly to kick out the Indians and be neutral like all small countries, never to be used as pawns by India again. If she don't, Bhutan will be attacked not just at the border area between Bhutan and Sikkim where the Chinese seek to cut off Indian troops, but also the Indian troops inside Bhutan and Bhutan will suffer immense collateral damage. Plus Bhutan will lose her tourism business big time as she is seen as an unsafe place to visit.
Bhutan King Wangchuck and PM Tsering need to be brave and not allow India to bully her forever. This is what happened to Okinawan Ryukus people, swallowed up by Japan. If Bhutan don't stand up to India, there will be no more Bhutan in the next few decades and she will become like Sikkim, swallowed by India.
Bhutan's PM Tsering should make an incognito trip to Beijing to seek an economic deal to counter Indian strangulation on Bhutan.
If Bhutan don't put her foot down on India to withdraw her troops, Bhutan herself will become collateral damage. Think of the disputed area like Diaoyu/Senkaku island. Bhutan is like Okinawa. Chinese military strategists will see the need to attack Bhutan just like the Okinawa scenario to decapitate the Indians inside the disputed area.
So Bhutanese should move quickly to kick out the Indians and be neutral like all small countries, never to be used as pawns by India again. If she don't, Bhutan will be attacked not just at the border area between Bhutan and Sikkim where the Chinese seek to cut off Indian troops, but also the Indian troops inside Bhutan and Bhutan will suffer immense collateral damage. Plus Bhutan will lose her tourism business big time as she is seen as an unsafe place to visit.
Bhutan King Wangchuck and PM Tsering need to be brave and not allow India to bully her forever. This is what happened to Okinawan Ryukus people, swallowed up by Japan. If Bhutan don't stand up to India, there will be no more Bhutan in the next few decades and she will become like Sikkim, swallowed by India.
4
This is not about communism - an ideology that doesn't exist anymore. It is about a racist country that is massively suppressing the Tibetans and certainly wouldn't treat the Bhutanese better if it got a chance.
4
China harvest money from sale of mobile handsets in India. China do invest in India through select private channel. But, politics, it is China way, get out of their ways. Economy, ploitics, military strength, it is entertaining to see the game being played out. India has deep domestic issues to overcome to meet the challenge , real challenge , that is Chine
Where did the South China Sea issue disappear to? It was headlines daily for a while there and there was so much trepidation at the implications of China taking over shipping lanes. What pushed that issue off of our radar out here in little people land? I guess the "for public consumption" foreign policy controversy is on a diet. Maybe Trump gave them the South China Sea in exchange for a golf course in the Forbidden City and some chocolate cake.
1
It was no more of an issue as territorial, island, and waterway disputes between the U.S. and Canada. China and Philippines are on friendly terms and have friendly exchanges.
China should stop building roads, bridges and ports in disputed areas. Reslove the disputes before you start any construction activities. China thinks that it can do all it wants and there's no one to stop them. This bullying and aggression must stop. China is not acting like a leader, but a dictator contradicting it policy of peacefull rise.
8
The nationalistic noise on both sides is frightening.
I hope that the rhetoric will calm down after the next Chinese communist party congress and that cooler heads will prevail.
Personally I believe that India's fear over the "chicken neck" is overblown for many reasons: first of all China wouldn't attack a nuclear power. Secondly, India's military is well entrenched on the top of the mountains, so the Chinese would to have to, literally, fight an uphill battle in a very remote spot without roads or other infrastructure. Thirdly, China could probably disrupt the roads and bridges in the Siliguri corridor by long-range artillery and airstrikes alone, but again this is unlikely as India has nukes. Fourthly, if ever the corridor was cut, India could just transit trough Bangladesh, a country which India helped create, largely, to annoy Pakistan.
The whole China scare basically serves India's large, inefficient, militaro-industrial complex, nationalistic politicians, TV talking heads and newspaper columnists.
I also believe it's about time that India stops treating Bhutan as a protectorate. The Bhutanese are not only afraid of a Chinese annexation as happened in Tibet but equally about an Indian annexation as happened in Sikkim.
I hope that the rhetoric will calm down after the next Chinese communist party congress and that cooler heads will prevail.
Personally I believe that India's fear over the "chicken neck" is overblown for many reasons: first of all China wouldn't attack a nuclear power. Secondly, India's military is well entrenched on the top of the mountains, so the Chinese would to have to, literally, fight an uphill battle in a very remote spot without roads or other infrastructure. Thirdly, China could probably disrupt the roads and bridges in the Siliguri corridor by long-range artillery and airstrikes alone, but again this is unlikely as India has nukes. Fourthly, if ever the corridor was cut, India could just transit trough Bangladesh, a country which India helped create, largely, to annoy Pakistan.
The whole China scare basically serves India's large, inefficient, militaro-industrial complex, nationalistic politicians, TV talking heads and newspaper columnists.
I also believe it's about time that India stops treating Bhutan as a protectorate. The Bhutanese are not only afraid of a Chinese annexation as happened in Tibet but equally about an Indian annexation as happened in Sikkim.
13
One of the few comments on here that actually understands the issue. Bravo.
4
The article is right on regarding the situation there. Two bullying dogs eyeing each other fighting over a bone without much meat on it. I think the US is doing a smart thing by staying out of the dispute between the two most populous countries. In fact, it would be better to egg them on and sell weapons to both sides when the situation turns to military conflict. Whatever the outcome, it would certainly benefit us and provide some entertainment at least.
2
I guess it makes little difference to anyone involved that the area disputed is actually on the border between Tibet and Bhutan - China having violently invaded Tibet in the mid-20th Century, as the article mentioned. The majority of Bhutan is ethnically Tibetan and their language is closely related to Tibetan - so much so that I, as a Westerner who has studied Tibetan, can read and basically understand the Bhutanese Dzongkha language. The names of the locations in the disputed area are in the Bhutanese language, which means they are likely populated by Bhutanese, which to me anyway, makes the area Bhutanese. So unless those Bhutanese are enthusiastic about becoming Chinese citizens, the area belongs to Bhutan.
Obviously, names and languages don't define borders, but since China forcibly annexed Tibet against its will and basically committed genocide in the process, and since China continues to display its expansionist and violent inclinations, the Bhutanese have every right to be worried, as does India. I hope for a nonviolent resolution of this dispute... and all of China's other border disputes.
Obviously, names and languages don't define borders, but since China forcibly annexed Tibet against its will and basically committed genocide in the process, and since China continues to display its expansionist and violent inclinations, the Bhutanese have every right to be worried, as does India. I hope for a nonviolent resolution of this dispute... and all of China's other border disputes.
9
Tibet was a puppet state carved out of China by the British Empire during China's extreme weakness, similar to the "Donetsk People's Republic" in Ukraine today. Like the Donetsk Republic, it was not recognized by any country, not even its master Britain. Once Britain lost its Indian Empire after WWII, Tibet had no hope to survive as a de facto state.
4
Following your logic, Taiwanese essentially Chinese descendants, but why U.S. and some other countries back Taiwan not being united with mainland China? No reasons, but interest.
5
What is clear is that the border dispute is between China and Bhutan and has nothing to do with India. India's action is akin to China crossing the border into India-occupied Kashmir in support of Pakistan's claim to that region. It's inexcusable aggression.
9
Nomad - correct. But since India is "western allied democracy" it is ok to do that. At least in the eyes of most on this side of the world.
4
It's a dispute between Tibet and Bhutan. China is occupying force in Tibet, nothing more.
1
The solution is simple - China should not be building or improving roads in disputed territory. The PRC's abysmal record in the South China Sea and Tibet show both Bhutan and India what China will do if not aggressively confronted at every turn.
5
You missed the point China has the right to do any constructions on her own land. It's india invading China crossed the border. There is no disputed area b/w India and China in this standoff.
1
The article didn't mention that this dispute would involve Sikkim, Bhutan, and China (not India), except India took over Sikkim in 1975.
4
It's dispute Bhutan, Tibet and India: Silligury corridor is in India, not Sikkim and Tibet is occupied territory of China.
1
The writers of this piece are either too coward or intentionally blur the facts. Look at the map - the solid border line separating India and China. But where is China? Regardless, Indian army crossed its border this time and was asked to withdraw. This is like Mexican army crosses the border to San Diego to block construction work. I am surprised the Chinese had not done anything yet.
4
Lately China is throwing its weight around not only in its immediate neighborhood but throat the world. Poorer countries have simply no choice but to give in to the exploitation of their resources bu at least the richer West needs to check the rise of this autocratic country which is becoming a real danger to peace in the region. Alas, lure of cheap Chinese goods produced by slave labor, is too much to resist.
2
Right, same as buggy software and BPO services provided by slave labour from Bangaluru or substandard meds from Hydrabad is too hard for the western shareholders to resist.
Westerners are more worried about explosive products from terrorist heaven of Pakistan
2
Perhaps they should ask Trump to mediate. He has such excellent diplomatic skills.
8
The best. The most beautiful.
2
Perhaps we should all boycott products made in China, in Wal-Mart as well as in the Apple Store.
NO ONE empowers China more than U.S. consumers with their child-like desire for everything to be cheaper, cheaper, cheaper.
NO ONE empowers China more than U.S. consumers with their child-like desire for everything to be cheaper, cheaper, cheaper.
5
Don't be surprised if he's not in the background. India crossed into Bhutan right as Modi was coming here to meet Trump.
Keep repeating no one on one at the G20. Let's not be naive in world affairs. There is also the possibility such a meeting could inflame tensions.
2
It's the beginning of control over the Himalaya water shed.
18
China is living upto its longstanding reputation as the biggest bully in the region seeking lebensraum in almost all the countries that unfortunately border it ! Border disputes and threats are Beijing's weapon of choice in establishing its hegemony in Asia !
23
Somebody had to stand up to the big bully. China has Border or Maritime disputes with all its neighbors and claims territory based on whatever history its propaganda suits. India has built a broad alliance including the US, Nato, Australia, Japan, South Korea and Vietnam who are all sick of Chinese aggression while China has only the failed parasite states Pakistan and North Korea supporting it. Xinhua is still praising Modi and Indian Foreign Policy so looks like China is not spoiling for war but looking for a face saving way to deescalate.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-07/25/c_136471919.htm
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-07/25/c_136471919.htm
29
Actually Australia is closer to china than to India.
1
Unfortunately I don't see a real ally there
"Somebody had to stand up to the big bully."
Like Trump, the Mother of All Bullies?
Every time Xi or Putin meet with Trump, the next morning one can see little undigested pieces of Trump in each man's stool sample.
Like Trump, the Mother of All Bullies?
Every time Xi or Putin meet with Trump, the next morning one can see little undigested pieces of Trump in each man's stool sample.
An important story with global consequences that the Times has finally picked up on. This has been going on for well over a month. While China is clearly the provocateur here knowing full well that building a road that will being them closer and closer to India's vulnerable chicken's neck area in an area of disputed land for generations, India needs to be very careful as it's troops are on Bhutanese disputed territory that India has no claim. Both sides are playing with matches in a pool of gasoline, so to speak. When so many troops are eyeball-to-eyeball in a remote area anything can happen.
Bottom line is China wants India to recognize it as the only super-power in Asia, something India refuses to do and this is simply China's way of saying better fall into line or else.
Excellent graphics in the story help the reader understand this confusing terrain.
For those interested, more analysis here:
http://thediplomat.com/2017/07/the-political-geography-of-the-india-chin...
http://thediplomat.com/2017/07/whats-driving-the-india-china-standoff-at...
Bottom line is China wants India to recognize it as the only super-power in Asia, something India refuses to do and this is simply China's way of saying better fall into line or else.
Excellent graphics in the story help the reader understand this confusing terrain.
For those interested, more analysis here:
http://thediplomat.com/2017/07/the-political-geography-of-the-india-chin...
http://thediplomat.com/2017/07/whats-driving-the-india-china-standoff-at...
32
Thank you for the posts at The Diplomat website. It is quite informative.
1
Well, it's about time someone confronted the dragon and found out if it's breathing fire or hot air.
9
China lays claim to some territory of EVERY neighboring country. It would have been useful for this article to note that, rather than imply that this is an isolated situation.
34
That's what Western and Indian propaganda would like you believe. If you actually read scholarly studies of China's border disputes such as MIT professor Taylor Fravel's acclaimed book "Strong Borders, Secure Nation", you'll get a completely different impression. See http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8782.html
1
Good thing Trump doesn't have a genuine border dispute to handle.
4
Does China get along with anybody? At last count they had 14 border disputes with neighbors, not counting their childish tantrums in the South China sea. Some "superpower" this.
38
Thy get along no more or less with their neighbors than in India. You wouldn't know that from most western media. By the same token - most have no clue that the claims in the South China Sea were actually started by the government that lost the civil war and fled to Taiwan. The current government simply continues the claim... Which not coincidentally "Taiwan" also still claims (and is building on Taiping Island). In fact all the neighbors there have been doing the same things in terms of provocations since the 1970's. But you wouldn't know it in western media. I wonder why the Times skips over those parts when reporting on the SCS..?
1
Well I would rather them just have disputes than be like other superpowers who have just invaded or bombed whoever they felt like whenever they felt like.
1
Poor excuse. Two wrongs don't make one right
1
India should ask China to vacate Tibet which it has occupied against the peace loving and unarmed Tibetans many of whom many including the Dalailama their most respected and only leader are refugees in India. Tibet is not even remotely related to China culturally or emotionally. Their language is very different from the Chinese graphical language. In fact Tibetans alphabets are akin to Indian language's alphabets. Tibet is closely linked to India as they are Buddhists and Manas Sarovara and Mount Kailas reverred and regularly visited by the Hindus.
27
Why does India interfere with Bhutan and prevent it from establishing foreign relationships with other countries? Why is Indian army present in Bhutan? Is Bhutan the next Sikkim? India tries to achieve hegemony in south Asia and it is evident in its activity in Kashmir, Nepal, Bhutan and already annexed Sikkim. The India itself had not been a country in the past before its British master conquered them all. Northeast people in India suffer heavily in discrimination and are economically backward. India should break up to smaller countries and be nice to its neighbor. It is imprudent to provoke others for its own unfounded ambition.
13
H S - I won't get into the historic or practical issue - but a contemporary one. Hindu extremists violently target Christians and Muslims in India. What makes you think Tibetans would be welcomed after te euphoria wears off? Honest answer please.
1
To be a somewhat contrary voice: Tibet was not an entirely peaceful place of love and happiness. It was a somewhat feudal society with effective serfdom being relatively common. They did ban capital punishment in the early 1900s as Tibetan Buddhism opposed the taking of a life. However, they engaged in mutilation (loss of hands, ears, eyes gouged, etc) as criminal punishment. The extent to which this happened prior to the invasion is under dispute but the dispute is over the extent, not the existence, of the practice.
Second, Tibet *did* have an army after their de facto independence from the Qing dynasty (Tibet was effectively a Chinese vassal state since the early 1700s). They even invaded Chinese territory in 1930 (Sino-Tibetan war). Now, it was a small army in comparison to the Chinese but they did have arms and training provided by the British government. You may want to look at the Battle of Chamdo to appreciate the relative disparity between the forces at the end.
Lastly, there was a decades long slow simmering dispute between the Panchen and Dali Lamas which, for lack of a better term, irrupted into armed conflict in the 1940s.
None of this justifies or obviates the guilt China rightly faces for their invasion and annexation. I'm just mentioning it because the reality Tibetan history is a lot stickier than people imagine. I've always felt it's important to know the reality of a situation, including the sticky uncomfortable bits.
Second, Tibet *did* have an army after their de facto independence from the Qing dynasty (Tibet was effectively a Chinese vassal state since the early 1700s). They even invaded Chinese territory in 1930 (Sino-Tibetan war). Now, it was a small army in comparison to the Chinese but they did have arms and training provided by the British government. You may want to look at the Battle of Chamdo to appreciate the relative disparity between the forces at the end.
Lastly, there was a decades long slow simmering dispute between the Panchen and Dali Lamas which, for lack of a better term, irrupted into armed conflict in the 1940s.
None of this justifies or obviates the guilt China rightly faces for their invasion and annexation. I'm just mentioning it because the reality Tibetan history is a lot stickier than people imagine. I've always felt it's important to know the reality of a situation, including the sticky uncomfortable bits.
3
Hmm... the 1890 Convention seems pretty clear on the boundary being the watershed break between today's India and Tibet: "The boundary of Sikkirn and Tibet shall be the crest of the mountain range separating the waters flowing into the Sikkim Teesta and its affiuents !'rom the waters flowing into the Tibetan Mochu and northwards into other Rivers of Tibet." How is it hard to to not know which way the water flows in this mountainous terrain? Or does water flow uphill in the presence of Great Powers?
25
Water is difficult to base borders on. Water changes and erodes the landscape; ideally you want a fixed border water doesn't give you that. iirc there is/was a similar wording for two countries bordering each other in the alps. in that situation there was a bit of an issue. One of the major streams that flowed form the mountain at first followed the rest of the streams but then suddenly made a 180 degree turn back in the other direction. it was at the time assumed that this one stream was two different ones. When it was discovered that it was not a border dispute was created.
What we need in this situation and in all situations that involve border disputes (especially with China) is hard markers, perhaps man made ones, that both sides can agree on and be held to.
What we need in this situation and in all situations that involve border disputes (especially with China) is hard markers, perhaps man made ones, that both sides can agree on and be held to.
1
Didn't you read the paragraph about the 1890 Convention being self-contradictory?
3
It is well known that water flows downhill except in California where it flows towards money.
China is the spoiled teenager who's rich daddy gave them a shiny new sport scar and they're out looking for 'action' anywhere they can find it.
31
China is ruled by its own version of Donald Trump.
2
A comment like that shows how little we know about history. We are just taught "China is communist so it's bad". "India is democratic so it's good". The situation is WAY MORE complicated than that. This issue - like many others is a result of the mess British colonialism created. For most of history - China and India had no problems. In fact they were linked by Buddhism.
1
Right and for most of history no unified India existed but a mosaic of independent states who were constantly at war with each others.
Btw, you forgot to ask for the return of the Kohlinoor stolen by those bloody Britishers.
Btw, you forgot to ask for the return of the Kohlinoor stolen by those bloody Britishers.
1
Mongolia 1962, Afghanistan 1965. Russia 2008, Vietnam 2008, Nepal 1961, Burma 1960, Kazakhstan 2002, Tajikistan 2002, Kirghizstan 2002, Laos 1991, North Korea 1962, Pakistan 1963. On the contrary, India has border issue with ALL of his neighbors. Bhutan didn’t sign such treaty with China because India’s control. She has no freedom to sign anything with other country without India’s permission. What do you think about that?