What's new

Chinese PM Visits Bangladesh

Hon Mr Salim,

China borders both India and Pakistan, direct support to Pakistan in time of war will be seen as act of war by Indian Think Tank resulting in a tri national conflict. China has never supported military conflicts in Sub Continent nor will she ever do that in future. Thats the difference between China and other World Powers I assume.

China didn't fully distance herself either, we got tanks and mig's from her own operational services, KKH is a direct result of '65 and '71 wars with India. We both felt the urge to have land links and we both delivered. When US retrieved subs, frigates and other material after '71 impasse China again filled the gap and supplied hardware with full operational status and logistics.

What role did Pakistan play in '62 conflics? We didn't help China either.

If indeed China was such a great ally, it should have got into a direct confrontation with India on behalf of Pakistan.

It would be immaterial if it was a three nation war or not.

If Pakistan did not help China in 1962, how does it matter to India? It only indicates that the friendship with China is false.

A friend in need is a friend indeed.
 
Instead, the most pathetic, self-embarrassed and self-insulting person is the one whose only capability is ignorant of facts and can only roll sour-grape.

Pakistan stood on its own feet when facing up to a much stronger, aggressive military from the east. China never sent a single soldier on Pakistan soil to fight, as that is against Chinese military doctrine.

High quality and braveness of Pakistani soldiers have earned high praise from then Chinese premier Zhou Enlai, a well known statesman and a military genius.

If any one wants to enrich his/her knowledge, please the declassified file from US Department of State. (1969-1972).

Those whose only interest is to distort facts through weird illusion are advised not to read the file to avoid being disillusioned.

This is the usual homilies that China so smoothly spouts.

High morality and no action!

Very hollow.
 
All that I'm implying is that the world accepts China's economic power.

India has yet to achieve that.

Yeah, agreed.

But as far as India's own backyard is concerned, I don't see why she can't prevail over Chinese ambitions.
 
Some rumors about China’s stance in 71 conflicts need to be clarified.

1) Chinese military doctrine prevents it from sending troops abroad, until Chinese territorial is under direct threat of hostile forces, and/or also under the request of the neighboring friendly country. This is exemplified in Korea war, as well as in 62 Sino-India conflicts and Viet Nam conflicts. In latter two cases, only “direct threat” applies.

2) Then Chinese premier Zhou Enlai commented to Nixon and Kissinger that if India’s military involved in then East Pakistan’s conflicts, China “will not sit still.” (see the declassified document of US Department of State). Americans, by their own, interpreted this as China will send troops. (As a matter of fact, Nixon suggested China sending troops and US would support militarily as well. Also see the same file) This is a deadly wrong conjecture. Some other guesses such as China is going to parachute troops in BD is even more ridiculous. China was then in a chaos, and PLA functioned as a stabilizing factor in China. The main reason that China would not send troops in BD, however, is that it is a complete violation of Chinese military doctrine: Chinese territory was not threatened by BD conflicts. But, the Chinese did not sit still, it amassed troops along Sino-India board, and annihilated couple of Indian military posts established after Chinese troops withdrawal to their own territory in 62. China also issued an ultimatum-like waning to India. What China worried gravely at that chaotic time was that India had amassed its forces along West Pakistan board, and might well invade West Pakistan, and that had to be stopped. And it was stopped, as India obviously felt incompetent to fight in two fronts.

In conclusion, it is very ridiculous to imagine that China would send troops to BD, but it is probably very true that China exerted huge pressure on Sino-India board to force India to abandon any attempt/plan to invade westward and to relieve pressure on West Pakistan

Again whole lot of blige.

China will not fight unless directly involved. China does not have the capability. As simple as that. What happened to China when she attacked Vietnam should be an adequate reminder! As also the Nathu La incident!

India has always catered for a two front war. If one understands the terrain in NEFA, one will realise that it is not feasible to launch any major operation since there are no roads and artillery and logistics cannot move manpack or on mules.

The War was not taken into West Pakistan because of international pressure.
 
Chinese Invasion of Vietnam

February 1979

China's relations with Vietnam began to deteriorate seriously in the mid-1970s. After Vietnam joined the Soviet-dominated Council for Mutual Economic Cooperation (Comecon) and signed the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with the Soviet Union in 1978, China branded Vietnam the "Cuba of the East" and called the treaty a military alliance. Incidents along the Sino-Vietnamese border increased in frequency and violence. In December 1978 Vietnam invaded Cambodia, quickly ousted the pro-Beijing Pol Pot regime, and overran the country.

China's twenty-nine-day incursion into Vietnam in February 1979 was a response to what China considered to be a collection of provocative actions and policies on Hanoi's part. These included Vietnamese intimacy with the Soviet Union, mistreatment of ethnic Chinese living in Vietnam, hegemonistic "imperial dreams" in Southeast Asia, and spurning of Beijing's attempt to repatriate Chinese residents of Vietnam to China.

In February 1979 China attacked along virtually the entire Sino-Vietnamese border in a brief, limited campaign that involved ground forces only. The Chinese attack came at dawn on the morning of 17 February 1979, and employed infantry, armor, and artillery. Air power was not employed then or at any time during the war. Within a day, the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) had advanced some eight kilometers into Vietnam along a broad front. It then slowed and nearly stalled because of heavy Vietnamese resistance and difficulties within the Chinese supply system. On February 21, the advance resumed against Cao Bang in the far north and against the all-important regional hub of Lang Son. Chinese troops entered Cao Bang on February 27, but the city was not secured completely until March 2. Lang Son fell two days later. On March 5, the Chinese, saying Vietnam had been sufficiently chastised, announced that the campaign was over. Beijing declared its "lesson" finished and the PLA withdrawal was completed on March 16.

Hanoi's post-incursion depiction of the border war was that Beijing had sustained a military setback if not an outright defeat. Most observers doubted that China would risk another war with Vietnam in the near future. Gerald Segal, in his 1985 book Defending China, concluded that China's 1979 war against Vietnam was a complete failure: "China failed to force a Vietnamese withdrawal from [Cambodia], failed to end border clashes, failed to cast doubt on the strength of the Soviet power, failed to dispel the image of China as a paper tiger, and failed to draw the United States into an anti-Soviet coalition." Nevertheless, Bruce Elleman argued that "one of the primary diplomatic goals behind China's attack was to expose Soviet assurances of military support to Vietnam as a fraud. Seen in this light, Beijing's policy was actually a diplomatic success, since Moscow did not actively intervene, thus showing the practical limitations of the Soviet-Vietnamese military pact. ... China achieved a strategic victory by minimizing the future possibility of a two-front war against the USSR and Vietnam."

After the war both China and Vietnam reorganized their border defenses. In 1986 China deployed twenty-five to twenty-eight divisions and Vietnam thirty-two divisions along their common border.

The 1979 attack confirmed Hanoi's perception of China as a threat. The PAVN high command henceforth had to assume, for planning purposes, that the Chinese might come again and might not halt in the foothills but might drive on to Hanoi. The border war strengthened Soviet-Vietnamese relations. The Soviet military role in Vietnam increased during the 1980s as the Soviets provided arms to Vietnam; moreover, Soviet ships enjoyed access to the harbors at Danang and Cam Ranh Bay, and Soviet reconnaissance aircraft operated out of Vietnamese airfields. The Vietnamese responded to the Chinese campaign by turning the districts along the China border into "iron fortresses" manned by well-equipped and well-trained paramilitary troops. In all, an estimated 600,000 troops were assigned to counter Chinese operations and to stand ready for another Chinese invasion. The precise dimensions of the frontier operations were difficult to determine, but its monetary cost to Vietnam was considerable.

By 1987 China had stationed nine armies (approximately 400,000 troops) in the Sino-Vietnamese border region, including one along the coast. It had also increased its landing craft fleet and was periodically staging amphibious landing exercises off Hainan Island, across from Vietnam, thereby demonstrating that a future attack might come from the sea.

Low-level conflict continued along the Sino-Vietnamese border as each side conducted artillery shelling and probed to gain high spots in the mountainous border terrain. Border incidents increased in intensity during the rainy season, when Beijing attempted to ease Vietnamese pressure against Cambodian resistance fighters.

Since the early 1980s, China pursued what some observers described as a semi-secret campaign against Vietnam that was more than a series of border incidents and less than a limited small-scale war. The Vietnamese called it a "multifaceted war of sabotage." Hanoi officials have described the assaults as comprising steady harassment by artillery fire, intrusions on land by infantry patrols, naval intrusions, and mine planting both at sea and in the riverways. Chinese clandestine activity (the "sabotage" aspect) for the most part was directed against the ethnic minorities of the border region. According to the Hanoi press, teams of Chinese agents systematically sabotaged mountain agricultural production centers as well as lowland port, transportation, and communication facilities. Psychological warfare operations were an integral part of the campaign, as was what the Vietnamese called "economic warfare"--encouragement of Vietnamese villagers along the border to engage in smuggling, currency speculation, and hoarding of goods in short supply.


Chinese Invasion of Vietnam
 
If indeed China was such a great ally, it should have got into a direct confrontation with India on behalf of Pakistan.

It would be immaterial if it was a three nation war or not.

If Pakistan did not help China in 1962, how does it matter to India? It only indicates that the friendship with China is false.

A friend in need is a friend indeed.

China and Pakistan are two different countries.

Both back each other on every front.

But why should Chinese babysit Pakistan? Are you saying that Pakistan cannot fight its own war with India? As long as a citizen of Pakistan alive. It by every means is capable of defending its country.

China backed Pakistan enough, and thats what Pakistan needed. Political failure within is nobody's but our own problem.

And who the witch says that the China and Pakistan wont help each other out (perhaps to the more extent) in the future if it needed so?
 
A friend in need is a friend indeed.

This theory doesnt apply when you talk about country to country relationship. Obiviously it isnt a fight between two people where friends of both could also jump in to support.
In a war, countires help in different ways and so have china, but that does not mean in anyway that help can only be provided by china jumping directly into the conflict. Besides we are very much capable to defend the mother land without external support.
Long live pakistan china friendship:pakistan::china:
 
Corruption is a part of life in BD and more institutionalised than other South Asian countries, which are equally corrupt.

Hasina is no pari either!!

Bujle dadu?

T Rex, don't you think it is better to reunite with Pakistan?

After all, what is wrong if they feel they are superior to you dark lazy Bengalees that Mujabir and his Mukti Bahinis dispelled?

Reunite.

Any takers in BD?

That should answer the question!!

A good which can happen now is Bangladesh should form a union with Pakistan and at the same time maintain their independent state.

It is always a better option that China provide a land route from Pakistan to Bangladesh via Burma.

I think Salim you are right that Mujibur Rehman dispelled that we Pakistanis consider Benglis inferior to us. And there was no reality in that how ever some political mistakes were committed which messed up
 
A good which can happen now is Bangladesh should form a union with Pakistan and at the same time maintain their independent state.

Mate its just nopt what you want, what matters is what BD wants, why would they form an union with you when they have huge access to Indian economy, a large border that allows the to export without tarrifs(smuggling), a migrant population that eases their unemployment woes above all a country theat liberated them. Why should they shoot in their feat when they are by nature of geography tied to a large Indian border, why would they create hostility with India just because it fits into Pakistans startegic vision.

Has there been such talks in mainstream BD's media, political and economic circle, Has such startergy been ever discussed as an election issue. That shall give you an Idea as to where their priprities lie.
 
Mate its just nopt what you want, what matters is what BD wants, why would they form an union with you when they have huge access to Indian economy, a large border that allows the to export without tarrifs(smuggling), a migrant population that eases their unemployment woes above all a country theat liberated them. Why should they shoot in their feat when they are by nature of geography tied to a large Indian border, why would they create hostility with India just because it fits into Pakistans startegic vision.

Has there been such talks in mainstream BD's media, political and economic circle, Has such startergy been ever discussed as an election issue. That shall give you an Idea as to where their priprities lie.

Forming a Union with Pakistan does not mean that they should create hostility with India.

They have seen the true face of the country which liberated them you can get the idea from their posts.

A union with Pakistan and good relations with China will certainly improve their economy as they will get more investment from the two countries.

You are right that currently there is no such debate on Bangladeshi media about this but soon it will be started.
 
Forming a Union with Pakistan does not mean that they should create hostility with India.

They have seen the true face of the country which liberated them you can get the idea from their posts.

A union with Pakistan and good relations with China will certainly improve their economy as they will get more investment from the two countries.

You are right that currently there is no such debate on Bangladeshi media about this but soon it will be started.

To be honest. we can't really judge public opinion in B'desh based on few posts from member here.

From what I've seen, we tend to get ultra-religious B'deshis who tend to believe in the concept of "ummah" etc. etc.

Current govt' in B'desh is also quite pro-India.
 
A good which can happen now is Bangladesh should form a union with Pakistan and at the same time maintain their independent state.

It is always a better option that China provide a land route from Pakistan to Bangladesh via Burma.

I think Salim you are right that Mujibur Rehman dispelled that we Pakistanis consider Benglis inferior to us. And there was no reality in that how ever some political mistakes were committed which messed up

I am afraid China cannot assure a land route to BD through Burma. Burma is still not a part of China.

Mujib did not dispel the superiority complex that West Pakistani have over the Bangaldeshi. He only reinforced that indeed West Pakistanis, and more so the Punjabis, overrated themselves! Even on this forum you will notice how disparagingly some posters write about the Bangaldeshi including racist stuff! Even the Mohajrs are not looked upon kindly and so did one poster say, alluding to his predicament when he was to take a job!
 
To be honest. we can't really judge public opinion in B'desh based on few posts from member here.

From what I've seen, we tend to get ultra-religious B'deshis who tend to believe in the concept of "ummah" etc. etc.

Current govt' in B'desh is also quite pro-India.

The majority of Bangladeshis are religious. My experience with them is always positive obviously we can’t judge their opinion with some posts but no one suggests to sacrifice their freedom; they can maintain their independent status.
 
I am afraid China cannot assure a land route to BD through Burma. Burma is still not a part of China.

China has a strong influence on Burma and I don’t think that Burma will have any objection on such route as they will be getting transit money.
 
China and Pakistan are two different countries.

Both back each other on every front.

But why should Chinese babysit Pakistan? Are you saying that Pakistan cannot fight its own war with India? As long as a citizen of Pakistan alive. It by every means is capable of defending its country.

China backed Pakistan enough, and thats what Pakistan needed. Political failure within is nobody's but our own problem.

And who the witch says that the China and Pakistan wont help each other out (perhaps to the more extent) in the future if it needed so?

The issue is not babysit.

While posters lament of the US not being a reliable ally because they did not wholeheartedly support Pakistan in its wars with India, it is extraordinary that the same is not being applied to China, when Pakistan and China have similar interest as far as India is concerned and have contiguous borders!

The bone of contention for India and Pakistan is Kashmir.

Pakistan did not go to war to test its weapon system. It went to war to capture Kashmir and it was fighting a larger country. Therefore, it was essential that the Indian Army was kept busy elsewhere too so that there was near parity of combat ratio. China could have ensured troops are pulled out from Kashmir so that Pakistan could have a better situation to fight the war. But China did not do so!!

Ah yes, we always have hope for the future!

As they say in Italian Domani (Tomorrow) never comes!

You will forgive me, but I see it from a military standpoint and not emotional!

I think that wars are very expensive in finances and loss of good people. Therefore, if one is to go to war, then one has to ensure one wins and not merely making a fanciful 'statement' that one is capable of waging war!! very avenue to win the war is a must and for Pakistan, it means China assists physically and not merely through pious thoughts and mealy mouthed homilies!!
 
Back
Top Bottom