China warns India on South China Sea exploration projects

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Rayc, Sep 22, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Rayc

    Rayc RIP

    An interesting situation.

    China can operate in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir as it so desires, even though knowing fully well that India claims it as a part of India and Pakistan considers it as a dispute, and yet, if India legitimately explore for oil in Vietnamese water, it upsets China since they claim it is 'disputed'

    Does indicate double speak that is legend with China. There is one rule for China and one rule for others!!
  2. Historians will know that 'double speak' is not confined to China.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. I have a cunning plan. Get British companies to do the work, but split the profits 3 ways.
  4. The Chinese are only doing what we did when we were the superpower.
  5. I thought i'd be safe booking a holiday to Vietnam - when's it likely to kick off and will the yanks come and save me?

  6. I'm sure they'd send in a crack team.......

  7. Doesn't look to me much like the Pakistanis consider it 'as a dispute'. Popular opinion in Pakistan would seem to be of the same ilk as their governments. I can't see why you'd be claiming it to be 'disputed' and therefore not open to development agreements when the other side clearly feel it to be inviolably their sovereign territory to do with as they wish.

    Does indicate double speak that is legend with India. There is one rule for India and one rule for others!!
  8. Le_addeur_noir

    Le_addeur_noir On ROPs

    Yank Special Forces are on exercise in Cambodia this week.

    Vietnamese requested the sale of P-3C maritime patrol airplanes from the US,but are highly likely to be turned down,but the Americans have signed agreements fro regular exercises in Vietnam.

    The Republic of the Philippines is concerned abost Chinese moves on the Spratley Islands,but their military is ineffective.They are looking to spend more on defence.
  9. The US has just announced that it's armaments sales to the Republic of China won't include the newer F-16C/Ds but an upgrade of their existing F-16A/Bs.

    According to the China Post, there's a U.S. Defence Department study with an interesting conclusion.

    Seems like everyone wants them but us!
  10. Rayc

    Rayc RIP

    The British Parliament’s Indian Independence Act of 1947 ended British suzerainty over the Indian Princely States and the rulers were free to decide which country (India or Pakistan) they wanted to join.

    In October 1947, the Pakistani tribals from Dir entered Kashmir along with Pakistani army individuals ‘on leave’, intending to liberate it from Dogra rule. They reached Badgam on the outskirt of Srinagar after sacking Baramula. India did not intercede on behalf of Kashmir until the the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession on 25 October 1947, which was accepted by the government of India on 27 October 1947.

    It maybe worth noting that the Instrument of Accession was the mode by which 542 Princely States of British India either joined India or Pakistan. Kashmir having signed it in favour of India thus makes Kashmir a legal part of India. If the Instruments of Accession signed by the Princely States are not legal, then the territorial boundaries of India and Pakistan are not valid!

    Nehru accepted the call for a Standstill Agreement and thus the current situation came into being with 43% being under India and 37% being under Pakistan. Of that 37%, Pakistan has donated by ceding the Shaksgam Valley to China.

    The Pakistani govt holds that Kashmir is a ‘disputed’ territory. This is the officially stated position. India, on the other hand, states that it is an integral part of India.

    In so far as popular opinion of Pakistan is concerned, it would be better if the popular opinion of the Pakistan held Kashmir is taken into consideration. Here is what Dr Shabir Choudhry was born in Nakker Shamali (near Panjeri) in District Bhimber, Azad Kashmir (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir) who went to UK in 1966, and holds a dual nationality has to say. He is also Head, Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party and Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.

    Dr Shabir Choudhry's blog: Kashmiri nationalism has not matured yet, Dr Shabir Choudhry

    Here is a Pakistani newspaper's view:
    Kashmir in focus

    China maybe developing Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, but then Pakistan claims Kashmir is ‘disputed’. Therefore, your view that India developing South China Sea to help Vietnam is not hallal or not kosher is a bit strange, more so, since the exploration falls within Vietnamese waters.

    Strange that you do not accept what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!

    On double speak of China, where should we start?

    Let’s start with the Bandung Conference, graduate to Panchsheel, move onto Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai, and then any treaty that puts China in a tight spot is an ‘unequal treaty’ (McMohan Line, Tibet, China uses this term “Unequal treaty” to a number of treaties imposed by Western powers, during the 19th and early 20th centuries). And, what is interesting is that China conveniently forget the same when they adopted the same mode as the Western powers on their neighbours to impose unequal treaties, to include the South China Sea; and much of their history of acquisition is based on fables.

    If that is not enough to indicate doublespeak, let us move to modern times.

    China has sent weapons to regimes that are killing their own eg Sudan, Zimbabwe etc and yet China pretends to be the apostle of Peace and hectors all!!

    China offered arms to Gaddafi (China Alleged to Have Offered Arms to Gaddafi - Global Spin - ) and abstained on the UN resolution on the issue of airs strikes on Libya and yet China was the first to take Oil from the Libyan rebels via the trading house Vito!!! (Libya rebel oil cargo China-bound -sources - AlertNet ).

    If that is not doublespeak, one wonders what is!

    Do let us know of Indian double speak that is legend!
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Now now, mon General. If we’re not careful we’ll give the impression that India is a bellicose regional power intent on dictating to its neighbours what they can and can’t do within their own borders.

    India itself set the precedent that the British Independence settlement did not define national borders when it fought a war to annexe Goa – a former Portuguese colony not covered by any agreement with the Raj.

    The source I provided show the Pakistani government has allocated J&K the same status of statehood as the other integral parts of Pakistan. That seems to me to suggest that they don’t consider the bit they control to be disputed in any way and are quite happy to exercise sovereign power over it.

    That India considers it disputed is not really relevant, is it? Again, India sets the precedent that other nation's claims are not relevant to the exercise of sovereignty over controlled territory: India doesn’t restrict its own freedom of action in <takes deep breath> Chumar, Kaurik, Shipki Pass, Jadh, and Lapthal, Arunachal Pradesh, the Depsang Plains, Kalapani, the Siachen Glacier, Baan Ganga, or any of the other areas it controls that other countries lay claim to simply because other nations lay claim to them. Why expect other nations to behave in a way India is not prepared to?

    Pakistan claims that Kashmir is Pakistani territory occupied by India. Repeatedly claiming that they claim it to be ‘disputed’ is disingenuous at best. They claim it’s theirs, not India’s, and that this isn’t subject to negotiation or compromise. Just like India’s position, but in reverse.

    I never expressed that view at any point, mon General. I merely pointed out how India’s position on how legitimate is the disposition of a disputed territory varies depending on whether India currently occupies it or not.

    I was merely pointing out that there was considerable goose/gander demarcation in your own position regarding what India will permit its neighbours to do with the territory they control.

    Incidentally, have all of the casualties from Boraibari been accounted for yet?

    How has China ‘imposed’ any treaties over the South China Sea? Last time I looked, all the disputing nations were still vigorously disputing with no settlement in sight.

    I’d advise you to think of your current audience before damning those who sell arms to governments who then use them against their own people. <cough>Hawk<cough>. Or alternatively look closer to home at Indian arms sales to Myanmar instead. Indeed, “If that is not doublespeak, one wonders what is!”
  12. Rayc

    Rayc RIP


    Much water has flowed down the Thames and the Ganges and neither Britain nor India can carry on the legacy of Oliver Cromwell or Mahatma Gandhi forever, can they? Can’t be in a timewrap forever, can we? Bellicose, it may appear to you, but to us, a mere attempt to find our rightful place in the sun. I do agree some do not feel too comfortable with that fact. Insecurity?

    Ah, Goa the argument to rubbish the provisions of the British Parliament’s India Independence Act 1947! Ingenious!!

    Let me not burden you with a history lesson, but suffice it to say, the Gaudas, Kunbis and Kols, who are the inhabitants of Goa, are groups found in India in the neighbouring states which India inherited as legatee of history, as also of the British and I daresay there is anything to suggest that these people (we will call them Goans, for convenience) are Portuguese or Europeans by any stretch of imagination. In short, the Goans were a colonised people by an imperialist power who (the Goans) were basically Indians by a quirk of history and genes. So, what India did was wrong? Indeed, they did if one believes India should remain in Gandhi's shadow forever. However, let us say that the Bible guided us (secular country, what ho!) - “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).

    Pakistan not consider Kashmir as disputed? Indeed they do! Would the circular from the Pakistan Mission at the UN that states that Pakistan considers Kashmir as a disputed territory dispel any doubts that you may have? Here it is for you:
    (quote) The United Nations also does not consider Indian claim as legally valid: it recognizes Kashmir as a disputed territory. With the exception of India, the entire world community recognizes Kashmir as a disputed territory.(/quote)
    Kashmir - Pakistan Mission to UN

    Kashmir is treated as a State of Pakistan? Indeed it does, even though they think it is disputed. However, do observe what Dr Shabbir Choudry, an activist for Kashmir in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) and a British citizen to boot, has to say (apart from the link I gave earlier): . Speaks much about the manner in which the Kashmiris are indeed a State of Pakistan! Need one say more?

    It was good of you to trot out various areas that the Chinese claim that are a part of India. So, I take it that you, like the Chinese, consider the McMohan Line (the Treaty between the UK and Tibet) as a bogus piece of paper! If Treaties were all bogus, then I presume you would also subscribe to the view that Falklands is not a part of Britain and instead it is but a part of Argentina? I presume that is what your stand is!

    I am sure you also feel that British Crown Colonies, now called British Dependent Territory is an imperialist anachronism that should be abolished and the oppressed people set free!

    In the event that you may have forgotten what Britain owns overseas, here is a refresher:

    As far as Imperialist powers and treaties are concerned, it is the Chinese who were the wisest. Britain and the Europeans ventured too far and so they had to give up their claims, as also while Macaulay only made the natives WOGs, he made the mistake of not making them British people in every way including brainwashing them to be British. The Chinese, wise that they are, not only captured the territories, but systematically wiped out all the roots of the captured people, who they called barbarians, and forcibly made them accept the Han culture and made them call themselves Hans. Today, China claims that 92% of the Chinese population are Hans!! There could not be a more bogus a claim. To imagine such a huge land mass is that of only one stock – Han! It is another chicanery how ‘history’ and ‘reality’ is doctored to suit the agenda! And you hold a candle for them and project them purer than driven snow!

    Here is the changing face of Chinese imperialism over history:

    You may like to read Frank Dikötter’s ‘The discourse of race in modern China’ or James Stuart Olson’s ‘An ethnohistorical dictionary of China’ you will observe how the Chinese (Hans) systematically Sinicized or Hanised the barbarians, wiped their roots and made them believe they were Hans and nothing else.

    Let us leave history and cut to the present. What is China doing to the Tibetans and the Uighurs? Bringing prosperity, right? That is the belief that China wants to spread. Look deep. It is the same game of Sinicizing at play. Wipe out culture, language and religious ties and rites. Change the demography. Encourage Hans marrying Tibetans….and hey presto! You only have Hans, as in the rest of China!

    Check this link of how Ramadan is not allowed in Xinjiang. Compare it with Britain where if this happened they would have been mayhem! And Britain would have accepted it! In China, they will crush all dissent and ensure that the Han culturalism and the Communist way remains supreme!
    Ramadan Reflections from Xinjiang

    Your post suggests that you are an ardent aficionado of the Chinese line. So, Tibet is a part of China, right? However, history does not indicate so.

    Now, let us go back into history. If one went by the Chinese way of interpreting history, just check what would be India.

    By the way what is Boraibari? And what casualties?

    Chinese have not ‘imposed’ any treaties in South China Seas? When have the Chinese done anything directly or is a straightforward manner? Have they not indirectly indicated that the South China Seas is theirs? You want me to work overtime to prove so. What happened with Vietnam? Joggle your memory. And what made Philippines so angry? Obviously, not mere hot air that emanates from Beijing periodically without fail.

    On China selling arms to rouge regimes like Sudan and Zimbabwe or wanting to sell to Gaddafi, firstly, I do not understand what you mean by ‘current audience’ which I am not catering for. Are you suggesting that the 'current audience' (whatever that be) i.e. ARRSE posters support the sale of arms to rogue regimes like Sudan and Mugabwe? Are you suggesting that the ARRSE is a Chinese forum?

    Secondly, how does it compare with Helicopters being sold to Myanmar by India? Is a helicopter a lethal weapon?
  13. Indeed they can’t. So when would you feel would be the appropriate time for India to break with the legacy of the past and abandon its claim to Pakistan-Administered Kashmir?

    Sun-seeking may indeed be the case with your partners in your various disputes – and your response to them may also be insecurity. Sauce for the goose is, as you said, indeed sauce for the gander.

    My intent was not to rubbish but just to point out that India itself does not regard the IIA47 as the final say on the matter of borders. That being so, there’s no reason for other ganders to behave differently now that India's set the precedent.

    You seem to be claiming that because the peoples of Goa were the same as those in the surrounding areas of India, then they were rightfully Indian. It’s a rather bizarre argument so perhaps you’d care to amplify – particularly with reference to the counter-argument that perhaps those peoples should more ‘rightfully’ have belonged to a Greater Goa than an aggressively-expanded India to which the majority of them had never previously belonged.

    There’s a difference between a ‘disputed territory’ and a territory under dispute. The Pakistanis do not dispute that the territory is theirs because they believe it to be inviolably theirs – as your link made clear – but they dispute India’s occupation of what they see as their inalienable territory.

    I believe last time we debated, I pointed out a number of groups within India that did not wish to be part of India nor consider themselves to be Indian.

    I listed the various territories currently controlled by India that are claimed by its regional neighbours as a way of demonstrating that your arguments as to what Pakistan can and can’t do with the territory it controls can apply to India too. I made no comment on the respective merits of the various competing claims. Do you believe that a dispute over territory should prevent the controlling nation from exercising sovereignty over that territory while the dispute is in course or not?

    I have never claimed in this thread what I believe the ‘correct’ LOAC to be and have in a number of previous threads made clear my position on the historic justifications for PRC control of Tibet. What I have subscribed to is the position that if these situations confer ‘rights’ on India over disputed territories then they also confer those same ‘rights’ on other occupying powers – including those you are labouring so mightily to discount for other nations.
  14. I’m not sure how any of that is relevant to the current discussion as it has no bearing on the legitimacy of territorial control, but I’ll give it a go. The PRC assigns ‘ethnicity categories’ because that’s what the big boys do and it’s eager to hang out with the older kids. In Chinese language there’s no real distinction made between race, nationality, ethnicity, clan, social group, work colleagues or a whole host of peoples-related concepts – [FONT=&amp]zu[/FONT] (&#26063;) covers them all. Beyond the rather artificial government category, there’s a recurring debate in China about what ‘Han’ actually is.

    It doesn’t have the more common hallmarks of an ethnicity: there’s no common language, no common religious belief, no common biological origin, no common myth of origin (the Sun God’s rib, etc.) and a wide variation in folk-practices like marriage ceremonies and funerals. Indeed Han from various parts of the country can have more customs in common with their non-Han neighbours than other Han from different places, e.g. round Gansu way, the most common religion amongst Han is Tibetan Buddhism. To suggest some hegemonising intent ignores the reality of variation on the ground.

    I’ve read Dikotter. Like most of his work, it’s designed more tp promote Dikotter than the ideas it contains. You perhaps might want to peruse E.J.M. Rhoades’ [FONT=&amp]Manchus and Han: Ethnic Relations and Political Power in Late Qing and Early Republican China, 1861-1928 (Studies on Ethnic Groups in China)[/FONT]. He shows how fungible ethnic classification has traditionally been in China. Alternatively, in The Last Manchu, The Kangde Emperor of Manchukuo boasts about the expansion of Manchu population under his rule - despite the ban on immigration to Manchuria and the mathematical impossibility of birth rate alone supplying the increase. The reason was that people happily classified themselves as whatever was convenient, so long as it made no change to how they went about their everyday lives. 'Han' is a slippery-enough concept for Chinese to understand.

    You should take a look at the Lumbini Project and who it’s main donors are. Or where the Singapore government got the money to promote Hokkien language at a time when it was fading in favour of Mandarin. Regardless of what the PRC has done in the past, it’s now making great efforts to stop minority cultures from dying out. That’s not the same as saying it won’t attempt to integrate them into the national fabric – just like the British state and the Gaelic-speaking minorities, it can only get them to participate in the mainstream if they can communicate effectively with the mainstream.

    What China’s doing is what governments do the world over. Has India refrained from driving development into its far-flung provinces, even when the immediate cost is high to the locals?

    And India’s ‘suppression’ of Sikhism in the aftermath of Operation Blue Star? Security is the first duty of the state, is it not? The clampdown on religious gatherings in Xinjiang was not matched in other majority-Islamic parts of China because the uprising there was ethnically-based but used religious institutions as conduits. The clampdown in Xizang was not matched in other majority-Tibetan areas where the TGIE didn't hold so much sway. The reason for these variations in suppression is because religion-as-spiritual-movement doesn’t worry them anymore but religion-as-political-force does.

    Not always an aficionado. Where I think they’re wrong I say so. Where I think they’re playing by the same rules as everyone else but being uniquely criticised for their game; or where I see double-standards in operation, then I’ll say that too.

    In this case, as before, the argument “China is wrong to do X because Y” applies closer to India's home and I have made a point of demonstrating why.

    Boraibari is a small village on the Bangladeshi side of the border into which India has had an unsavoury habit of sending troops to patrol and demonstrate effective control. A couple of years ago, a Indian patrol were ambushed near the village and several of your jawans killed. Their remains were displayed on Bangladeshi TV as evidence of Indian aggression into their territory. You can read more about it HERE.

    So you agree that there are no treaties? That flatly contradicts your earlier assertion that treaties had been imposed. The ongoing situation with Vietnam and the Phillipines (and RoC, Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia) demonstrate the lack of Chinese hegemony and the willingness of other nations to dispute their claims. I can't help but wonder why you persist in stating that the world is rolling over for them in the face of the evidence?

    Your ‘current audience’ comprises mainly Britons, whose country has a thriving armaments industry not given to much consideration of end-use. The list of regimes supplied by British arms manufactures – often with the agreement of the British government – includes a fair few unsavoury types who’ve turned their purchases on their populations. Saddam, the Pahlavis, the Myanmar regime, Middle-Eastern theocracies, various African potentates…

    Come now, that's not all India has sold the Junta. Look at the weapons sold in 2006 - artillery, tanks, attack helicopters. Ask the Iraqis or the Taliban if an attack helicopter is a lethal weapon. I think they’d say yes.
  15. They should've remained a US colony.