China’s Territorial Disputes with India

[Urbanized Greyhound]

Thank god, you're not the negotiator! I am no expert, but this is certainly not a way to resolve this sort of a dispute... and is simply loose negotiations... what do you think china will do after you hand over AP? Sit silent and do nothing? and What will you tell your fellow countrymen in Arunachal.. Oh, we bartered you! it doesn't even qualify for a PJ...

Perhaps he meant , they get to keep Aksai Chin and we get to keep Arunachal Pradesh . No exchange of territories , which would suit India just fine .

 

[mastaan]

nobody wants to have enemies, but it seems china will have to give up all the legitimate rights on territories to exchange your friendship, the cost is so high, actually it's common to encounter this kind of situation, china's neighbor: Japan which has territorial disputes with russian, korean, china. same as what you said having disputes with all neighbors, but we can not say Janpan has a invasive nature. it's quite common, don't extend it to some other fields. thanks.

With due respect, I don't think that it is that stark a picture as you have mentioned! First up, i don't think that any diplomat or Government official expects China to give over all her territorial claims to make amends with India... Second, i do think we still do have a decent (though very formal) relationship and our trade is a testament to that... and Third, my personal opinion is that both sides will have to make some compromises, if a real solution has to be found and in absence of such solutions, we should not let the real peace, trade and cultural exchanges suffer... Over time, those problems will solve themselves...

 

[mastaan]

Perhaps he meant , they get to keep Aksai Chin and we get to keep Arunachal Pradesh . No exchange of territories , which would suit India just fine .

That'd be the only practical solution, i daresay!

On a side note... Superlike the name n avtar!

 

[Bi-Bep]

You should tell us, china think we have sovereignty over those areas, we have the contact history from ancient times until today. Do you think that is not enough, well, I ask, what is India? What Vietnam? Since China is a " not enough ", your reason is" enough "? tell me, what is your reason to be" enough "?

This is not only considered to be extreme arrogant but quite absurd attitude. China could introduce nothing after she used force to seized the Paracel islands from Vietnam in 1974. Vietnam & China parted way for over 1,000 years already; China simply cannot go back and assert her claim of sovereignty over entire Vietnam as well. China does have its own law; however, China could never ever impose her law upon other countries at will she should respect international law accordingly. Let's go the the International Court to settle our disputes. Simply as that.

 

[faithfulguy]

This is not only considered to be extreme arrogant but quite absurd attitude. China could introduce nothing after she used force to seized the Paracel islands from Vietnam in 1974. Vietnam & China parted way for over 1,000 years already; China simply cannot go back and assert her claim of sovereignty over entire Vietnam as well. China does have its own law; however, China could never ever impose her law upon other countries at will she should respect international law accordingly. Let's go the the International Court to settle our disputes. Simply as that.

The issue about the islands is not a China/Vietnam issue. But its a China/Vietnam/Philippians/Malaysian/Indonesia/Brunei/Taiwan issue. So its should be agree upon by negotiations among the nations instead of going to a international court and make it a China vs Vietnam issue.

 

[Tigershark]

This is not only considered to be extreme arrogant but quite absurd attitude. China could introduce nothing after she used force to seized the Paracel islands from Vietnam in 1974. Vietnam & China parted way for over 1,000 years already; China simply cannot go back and assert her claim of sovereignty over entire Vietnam as well. China does have its own law; however, China could never ever impose her law upon other countries at will she should respect international law accordingly. Let's go the the International Court to settle our disputes. Simply as that.

I'd like to see Bush tried for war crimes in the ICC. If you can deliver that, I'll support your argument. Until then, americans are big fat hypocrites.

 

[Aramsogo]

Tibet was not historically a part of China. Tibet was a vassal state. It was conquered. Do not even compare Tibet with Texas or California. Texas and California are free to secede from the Federation of United States. Tibet was forcefully occupied. So the 'Free Tibet' campaign is legitimate. Why don't you go start a Free Texas or a Free California movement? I double dare you.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. Why not give Hawaiians a vote to secede ?? Texas and California was stolen from Mexico. China's claim to Tibet is just as legitimate.

 

[Huan]

Perhaps he meant , they get to keep Aksai Chin and we get to keep Arunachal Pradesh . No exchange of territories , which would suit India just fine .

How about China have both? I would not support any swapping.

 

[jdme]

How about China have both? I would not support any swapping.

Come and get it, then? Don't forget to bring some food too, can't get anything in US.

 

[jdme]

Do not be duly concerned by Chinese demand by the way. Chinese legitimacy for any land is based on the idea that some random empire at some period of time captured certain land and that somehow makes that land Chinese, forever. Ofcourse, if conquest is what gives legitimacy to such claim, obviously the country that posses the land now has superior claim since Chinese were not born with say, Tibet. Tibet is gone because it couldn't protect itself. All other "Chinese lands" are as Chinese as we are all "Africans".

 

[CardSharp]

Do not be duly concerned by Chinese demand by the way. Chinese legitimacy for any land s based on the idea that some random empire at some period of time captured certain land and that some makes that land Chinese, forever. Ofcourse, if conquest is what gives legitimacy to such claim, obviously the country that posses the land now has superior claim since Chinese were not born with say, Tibet. Tibet is gone because it couldn't protect itself. All other "Chinese lands" are as Chinese as we are all "Africans".

Yes, why fight to establish a nation at all. Much more dignified is to have a nation handed to you by you colonial overlords. At least Jinnah treated the Lord Mount Batten with the hate and contempt that an honest man would feel, Nehru well Nehru waited to lick the man's boots clean and ask for seconds.

 

[huzihaidao12]

This is not only considered to be extreme arrogant but quite absurd attitude. China could introduce nothing after she used force to seized the Paracel islands from Vietnam in 1974. Vietnam & China parted way for over 1,000 years already; China simply cannot go back and assert her claim of sovereignty over entire Vietnam as well. China does have its own law; however, China could never ever impose her law upon other countries at will she should respect international law accordingly. Let's go the the International Court to settle our disputes. Simply as that.

When will China demands Vietnam's sovereignty? What is this?

You do not really answer my question. You need to know it.

The principles of any international treaty is voluntary, any country has the right to choose not to join, which is the rule.

China does not force any country to do things, we just protect our sovereignty, Vietnam, too, so that there is a conflict. I agree that the best way to a negotiated solution, but China chose bilateral negotiations, as you said, you can not force other countries to accept it, you can not force China to choose he does not want .

 

[huzihaidao12]

The fact that certain monarches or generals of Indian Stock ( General Zorawar Singh was a Dogra Rajput ) ..have at times captured and controlled territory in Tibet as illustrated by the article . Likewise certain times Tibetan independent kingdoms have captured territory in certain areas currently under PRC and under India , likewise Chinese emperors in the past have captured and conquered territories of Tibet etc .

So the point is just because in a certain period of time eg . ( certain AD to certain AD ) Han Chinese gained control of the land cannot mean in present day it has a claim over those lands .

That way in a certain period of time ( certain AD to certain AD ) Indian people ( Rajputs , Sikhs etc ) have gained control of the same land too , so we have an equal claim over it that way .

Hence according to international convention -- "present day " territories under either Chinese occupation ( Tibet & Aksai chin ) or under either Indian occupation ( Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh ) should not be changed by either side basing on historical claims ---Both sides have historical claims on each other's territory as you can see .




Okay I get your viewpoint , that historical claims are not to be ignored . On the other hand , Indian viewpoint is that Historical claims cannot be considered in the modern times .

Reason I 've mentioned is that certain lands have been under control of certain empires at different times in history . How will you decide who has absolute claim ?
Because of this reason negotiation is easier when you consider territories under current occupation to remain under occupation by respective countries . Any attempt to change borders will result in bad relations and war.

In general, I agree with you, as I said, that there is another principle, reality, and can only say that history is the important factor, but not the only, which is why China has made a concession to our neighbors , land connected neighbors, China's principle is quite flexible. If India has sufficient foresight, it will not even have a war a few decades ago, if there is enough wisdom in India, 90S, we have solved the boundary problem and identified a far better relationship. Now, I do not know the Chinese government's attitude, but I personally support the peaceful and negotiated solution to the problem, of course, it also means that a compromise for both sides, but I think it is worth it . As to the specific details, I personally believe that China may want to get a better price than the 90S. Therefore, to make a bundle of other benefits, may be able to find a breakthrough point.

 

[Tshering22]

So... what's the point of this thread again?

 

[SR 71 Blackbird]

You really have no idea what you are talking about. Why not give Hawaiians a vote to secede ?? Texas and California was stolen from Mexico. China's claim to Tibet is just as legitimate.

I doubt there are any Hawaiians left who would want to secede.But millions of Tibetans do.