China aims to capture Arunachal Pradesh/Southern Tibet in next 10-15 years

[magra]

We in Pakistan are receiving Chinese vaccine, which is administered in 2 doses, the second after 21 days. So, I thought، that may be a second dose has become due, after the first one of 1962.

Pak has got so many doses - 65, 71, 99.. still its incurable.

 

[MH.Yang]

You said and I quote: "64% of China's govet revenue comes from state-owned enterprises." Now, tell me which part of this 64% is from profit and which part of it is from tax.

I didn't find the relevant statistics. However, paying profits by state-owned enterprises is similar to paying dividends to shareholders. Not all state-owned enterprises are able to pay profits. So I agree that most of these revenues are taxes.

 

[MH.Yang]

Even if what you say if remotely feasible, it would still not solve the discriminatory nature of UN having P5 with extra powers. So it will be hypocritical of India to go this approach.

China replacing Taiwan was a special case as PRC said that it is in fact the true govt of China and not the one sitting in Taiwan.
Remember the P5 seat was given to the country China and not to any specific govt.

Similarly, Russia was the largest bloc of USSR, so it was not difficult.

P5 seat is given to UK. How can an entirely different geographical entity India claim UK's seat saying we are the UK govt.

India only needs to submit a motion to the UN General Assembly, which requests the UN General Assembly to clarify whether the security council seat granted to Britain by the UN Charter in 1945 belonged to all British territories at that time. Interpreting the UN Charter is the right of the UN General Assembly, not the Security Council. As long as India can find enough supporters, it can get procedural support for the restoration of seats.

 

[MH.Yang]

by right of inheritance (ask narrendra teli for elaboration)

btw according to sangh parivar Nehru gave India’s permanent seat At UNSC to China in 1950. their "historians" and "experts" say that offers were made by the US and Russia

At that time, China's security council seat belonged to the Taipei govt. If the USA and the Soviet Union were able to give the Taipei govt seat to India, the USA and the Soviet Union should be able to prevent the PRC from resuming its seat on the Security Council, but they could not.
That's just another rumor made up by Indians.

The UN is not only the projection of the world order, but also an important tool for the USA, the Soviet Union and other countries to exert influence in the world. They will not easily undermine the legitimacy of the UN， even at the cost of allowing the PRC to resume its seat.

 

[MH.Yang]

Maybe. But I doubt it would go anywhere, considering the political atmosphere in India. In the near future, I would say both sides would just dig in and squeeze with small skirmishes.

I think it is impossible for China to agree to the proposal of southern Tibet to exchange Aksai Chin after the kalwan incident. The conflict exposed that Aksai Chin was not enough to protect the safety of CPEC and Karakoram Highway, and also exposed India's strength. I think the current reasonable negotiation requirement should be southern Tibet to exchange Ladakh and Aksai Chin.

 

[magra]

India only needs to submit a motion to the UN General Assembly, which requests the UN General Assembly to clarify whether the security council seat granted to Britain by the UN Charter in 1945 belonged to all British territories at that time. Interpreting the UN Charter is the right of the UN General Assembly, not the Security Council. As long as India can find enough supporters, it can get procedural support for the restoration of seats.

Britain colonized a lot of nations including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Africa etc. Why would India get exclusive right over others? That's just expending needless energy into a failed venture.

 

[MultaniGuy]

I think it is impossible for China to agree to the proposal of southern Tibet to exchange Aksai Chin after the kalwan incident. The conflict exposed that Aksai Chin was not enough to protect the safety of CPEC and Karakoram Highway, and also exposed India's strength. I think the current reasonable negotiation requirement should be southern Tibet to exchange Ladakh.

But China claims Aksai China and South Tibet.
Why would China give up land?

 

[MH.Yang]

Britain colonized a lot of nations including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Africa etc. Why would India get exclusive right over others? That's just expending needless energy into a failed venture.

Whether the British colonies are eligible to inherit the 1945-British seat should be judged by the United Nations General Assembly. As long as India can get 75% of the vote, it can pass.
I think former British colonial countries all will support India, because this is not only India's opportunity, but also theirs.
More importantly, other countries will certainly not be willing to add a permanent member, but they may not mind changing a permanent member.

Of course, if India succeeds. The United States, China, Russia and other countries will certainly support other Commonwealth countries to compete for seats. India needs another vote in the UN General Assembly. If China wins, I think you can guess who will get the seat...

But China claims Aksai China and South Tibet.
Why would China give up land?

That's just my guess.

 

[magra]

Whether the British colonies are eligible to inherit the 1945-British seat should be judged by the United Nations General Assembly. As long as India can get 75% of the vote, it can pass.
I think former British colonial countries all will support India, because this is not only India's opportunity, but also theirs.
More importantly, other countries will certainly not be willing to add a permanent member, but they may not mind changing a permanent member.

Getting 75% would not be possible to replace Britain as it will use its influence. Also US would influence nations on behalf of UK, as it would not like to replace a strong ally with a partner who may not support US all the time.

 

[SIPRA]

I think it is impossible for China to agree to the proposal of southern Tibet to exchange Aksai Chin after the kalwan incident. The conflict exposed that Aksai Chin was not enough to protect the safety of CPEC and Karakoram Highway, and also exposed India's strength. I think the current reasonable negotiation requirement should be southern Tibet to exchange Ladakh and Aksai Chin.

Is this your personal opinion, or there is some direct or indirect indication, to this effect, from the Chinese state officials?

 

[MH.Yang]

Getting 75% would not be possible to replace Britain as it will use its influence. Also US would influence nations on behalf of UK, as it would not like to replace a strong ally with a partner who may not support US all the time.

In 1971, China was hostile to both the Soviet Union and the USA, but China still get 75% coutry support.
If India's international influence is not as good as that of China1971, I suggest Indians give up your fantasy of a seat on the Security Council.

That's how an Indian is. When making plans, brag about himself. When carrying out the plan, he was cowardly and timid.

 

[SIPRA]

But China claims Aksai China and South Tibet.
Why would China give up land?

They have made this offer to India in the past.

 

[MH.Yang]

Is this your personal opinion, or there is some direct or indirect indication, to this effect, from the Chinese state officials?

That's my personal opinion.
Personally, I think southern Tibet can be traded, and Ladakh can't give in, and AksaiChin has been stably controlled by China, it does not need to negotiate.

 

[magra]

In 1971, China was hostile to both the Soviet Union and the USA, but China still get 75% coutry support.
If India's international influence is not as good as that of China1971, I suggest Indians give up your fantasy of a seat on the Security Council.

That's how an Indian is. When making plans, brag about himself. When carrying out the plan, he was cowardly and timid.

History check. In 1971, China was no longer hostile with US. In fact, in 1960s, Pak arranged an alignment between US and China.

 

[MH.Yang]

History check. In 1971, China was no longer hostile with US. In fact, in 1960s, Pak arranged an alignment between US and China.

You can check which countries voted against it, almost all are allies of the USA.