LBOAYM pointed out an article on the China-India conflict recently. I had mentioned a little about that on the last blog, pointing out that Modi had gone to China for the BRICS meeting days after India and China had resolved their dispute in Bhutan. The relation of these two giants will probably be subject of a large blog in the future. Today, I will just make some comments on this relationship.
The article that LBOAYM mentioned was in The Diplomat, which was founded in Australia and HQ in Japan now. I think there is a bias against China in this article. It is as if China is trying to take over all of Asia and India is the only country willing to stand up against it. It talks of border conflicts frequently between the two countries. I am no historian or politician and since I am Chinese American, perhaps I have my own bias. But I see things differently than this article.
For one thing, compare to European countries who share borders, India and China have been relatively conflict free through history. One reason is that their border is mostly the Himalayas. Who wants to go over the highest mountain ranges in the world to attack the other side? So the only "war" that the two side really fought was in 1962. I think if you were to read about the history of that short war from a western perspective, you would believe that China was the lone aggressor. From a Chinese point of view, and I am not supporting all of its version of events, that is far from the truth. China was unhappy with India for helping the Dali Lama and the Tibetans. At the same time, Mao and Khruschev were not getting along. So the USSR was aligning itself with India. So Mao was fearful that there is an U.S., USSR, India alliance at his border. India, felt that it was being backed by super powers, put up outposts north of the McMahon Line which the the British had drawn up as the border between China and India. Given this circumstance, Mao felt that he had to teach India a lesson.
China was able to do this because the U.S. and the Soviets were involved in the Cuban missile crisis. So neither could pay attention to India. Truth of the matter China knew it can't have a lasting victory in India. Fighting a war in mountain conditions take a terrible toll. There was no point in holding land that was really no use because nobody wants to live there. So China offered peace to Nehru after a few round of victories. But Nehru, under pressure at home, refused. So China pushed further than it wanted to and then unilaterally declared cease fire and then withdrew. So that was hardly China aggression to try to take over India. In fact, I think China did India a favor by exposing its weakness and dependency on foreign powers. It prepared India for conflicts with Pakistan later.
As a communist country trying to assure itself as a super power, China is going to rub people the wrong way. I don't think it is China's intention to conquer other countries. It does want to be the super power of Asia, if not the world. So it views everybody in the neighborhood as its little brother. For a country like India, with a long proud civilization, that is hard to take. It does not want to be anyone's little brother. So there will be dispute between the two. But I don't see war as that is something that will disastrous for both sides and the world. I think there are only two international relationships that is more important in the world in the near future. Those between the U.S. and China and between U.S. and Russia. If China and India can cooperate with each other, it will bring prosperity to the whole world.
Thursday, September 14, 2017
2 comments:
Use the following html code to make a clickable link in your comment (instructions in the sidebar). You can test the link by previewing your comment.
<a href="http://angryyellowman.blogspot.com">Angry Yellow Man</a>
The above example will display as Angry Yellow Man
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting history lesson here. I had to read up on the McMahon line a bit, to familiarize myself with the boarder. What I gather, the line was drawn vaguely and India decided decades ago to map it more precisely. and thus the dispute over the territory in Bhutan. I can see why both sides would be in dispute over this and put troops on either side. To the Chinese, it looks like India went across the boarder and claimed what the Chinese thought was theirs.
ReplyDeleteOne other interesting thing I read is that China never signed an agreement over the line at the Simla Convention. So this border has been in dispute for almost 100 years.
I was going to make a comparison of this conflict with what Russia did in Crimea, but now that I look at it further, both situations are not that similar. It doesn't mean that I like what is going on for such a trivial piece of land, but it doesn't seem like there's any real value to the land, like oil or raw materials. So, is this similar to what's happening with the islands off the coast? I'd be interested on your take.
-LBOAYM
Border lines and control of territories are all artificial things made up by whoever is most powerful at the time. There is no great reason for how the McMahon line was drawn. It was just the British can do it. If China or India is way stronger than the other then it can redraw the border and that will be the border period. Just like Pakistan and East Pakistan were drawn up by the British. Would there be more peace if India could have kept the whole country? Who knows, but it was not up to India.
ReplyDeleteThe islands is a big topic but I will give my short take. Like anything else it is not a question what is fair but who is more powerful. Why do we control all the oil in the Gulf of Mexico? Because we can. So if China can, it will take everything. In the case of the Diaoyu or Senkaku islands the fight is between Japan and China. So it is fairly matched and China may not win. If you look at the map, the islands are closer to Taiwan than mainland China or mainland Japan. Given that Taiwan historically belong to China, I think China has the better argument here.
The Spratly islands in South China sea are closer to the Philippines and Malaysia and Indonesia than China. So in fair terms, China has no claim. But in reality, unless the U.S. is willing to step in, there is no way these countries can hold off the Chinese navy and air force.
The truth is that nobody really wants to inhabit these islands. It is the natural resources that they are all after. If I am king of the world, I would divide the profits from the resources disputed by Japan, China and Taiwan this way: 50% China, 30% Japan and 20% Taiwan. In the Spratly areas, I would divide evenly among the countries that actually surround those islands. Maybe I give China a 20% to make sure the sea lanes are secured. Of course, nobody will ever listen to me but hopefully nobody goes to war over these islands.
So the islands are economically valuable. the same can't be said about the Himalayas. So I would think the focus of China will be the islands, not any spat with India. But who knows about national pride? Did it make any sense for Britain to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands? Those islands were further away to England than any disputed areas that China has with its neighbors. So national pride frequently trumps common sense.