Tuesday, November 14, 2006

kick out the chinaman!

nov 14th

it's come time to declare the chinaman, their ambassador, persona non grata and kick him out.

nowhere else in the world will an ambassador be tolerated if he claims chunks of a country's territory as his own.

so this is what it has come to after years of 'talks' with the inscrutable chinese. they have not moved one inch from their contention that arunachal pradesh is theirs. while india has appeased them by giving in more and more and more on all sorts of things. i'd like to know where india has gained. answer: nowhere.

bloody idiots!

5 comments:

edison said...

Rajeev, just as you pointed out a few days ago, certain dogs have not barked again. Elementary Watson !!

virat0 said...

I am not sure if it is different topic to mention the london leftists, the touble makers of the world. Chinaman is no different when they instigate violence in peaceful countries by these naxalite ideology and arming them. The british leftists are with them too.

Here it is, slate is not all liberal, it is American too:
http://www.slate.com/id/2153578/?GT1=8805

Asides loads of fun on topic of Sacha Baron Cohen, and his filmi name... following is intresting observation on liberal british dinner :



. The arrival of a mountainous black hooker does admittedly put an end to the evening, but if a swarthy stranger had pulled any of the foregoing at a liberal dinner party in England, I wouldn't give much for his chances.

Ananthoo said...

Hi rajeev..
its so bad and u know that the (non)Hindu published an article about tawang couple of days b4 this fiasco..
this what i had to say in my blog:
A couple of days back while visiting a friend's home, just happened to notice a good photo and so picked up to see it. Oh! what had I done, I had picked up the chinese newspaper..but still browsed it and noted there was an article on Tawang, chinese great 'openness' in accepting it and opening trade etc..and their 'so social behaviour'..
I swear there was some solidification effect in my stomach..i did hear the bells ring in my ears..oh This useless LOS(lump of S#*T) chinese paper is prolly giving us some inadvertant warning..why shud they suddenly glorify chinese, their army, tuwang etc..and here it lies now in front of all us..Their ambassador claims Arunachal is theirs and their govt says tuwang is theirs and so on..all this when their premier is to visit us..
So u all now know where they start sowing their first seed in India and ofcourse the commies wud go around with their umbrellas open bcos it wud be raining in Beijing..grit grit..

KapiDhwaja said...

Brahma on Brahmaputra and China again...

The Times of India Online
Printed from timesofindia.indiatimes.com > India


'Autocratic China becoming arrogant'
Brahma Chellaney


It is extraordinary for the Chinese ambassador to publicly claim on Indian soil that an entire Indian state — Arunachal Pradesh — belongs to his country. Not only does this statement reflect pointless belligerence, but it also counterproductively vitiates the atmosphere on the eve of Chinese President Hu Jintao’s India visit. If anything, the statement may be seen by many as a pointer to the danger of autocratic China becoming arrogant.

By contrast, it is unthinkable that a serving Indian ambassador would utter on Chinese soil — or elsewhere — anything insensitive about China. No Indian ambassador would dare even suggest that China resolve the Tibet or Taiwan issue peacefully by respecting the views of the majority of Tibetans or Taiwanese. Tactless or obtuse statements or actions are hardly the way to advance national interests. But China, being a closed system, does not seem to understand that.

The disturbing part is that this was not the first occasion when Chinese Ambassador to India Sun Yuxi spoke undiplomatically in public. Throwing diplomatic norms to the wind, the envoy took the lead last month in publicly castigating his host nation for seeking to exclude from Indian contracts a few Chinese firms tied to the People’s Liberation Army that are involved in strategic projects antithetical to Indian interests. For example, how can the state-run China Harbour Engineering Company develop Pakistan’s Chinese-funded Gwadar port-cum-naval base and still seek to build Indian ports? Most Chinese firms active or interested in India are unaffected by New Delhi’s action.

Yet, the Chinese ambassador condemned his host country at a news conference in New Delhi, setting the stage for friends of China, including in the CPI (M), to join the denunciation of the Indian government action. Sun Yuxi’s impertinence reminded many Indians of the way the Chinese consul-general in Mumbai audaciously talked down to Defence Minister Pranab Kumar Mukherjee at a seminar last year.

China’s claim to Tawang or to the whole of Arunachal Pradesh is not new. For long, Beijing has maintained its claim to Arunachal Pradesh as a bargaining chip in the border negotiations with India. What is new is for Chinese officials to make public their country’s claim to Arunachal Pradesh or to a slice of that state, Tawang.

The Chinese claim, in essence, is a classical example of a state pursuing incremental territorial expansion. The frontiers of China and India met for the first time in history only when China annexed Tibet in 1950. Within 12 years of becoming India’s neighbour, China invaded India from two separate fronts, with Mao Zedong cleverly timing his aggression with the onset of the Cuban missile crisis, which had brought the United States and the Soviet Union to the brink of a nuclear confrontation.

Having gobbled up the buffer separating the Indian and Chinese civilizations throughout history, China now lays claim to Tawang or to the whole of Arunachal Pradesh on the basis of the putative historical ties between Tibet and Arunachal. In other words, China is attempting to territorially extend the gains from its annexation of Tibet.

It brings out clearly that China is unwilling to settle the border issue on the basis of the status quo. Not satisfied with the Indian territories it has occupied, either by conquest or by covert encroachment, Beijing wishes to further redraw the frontiers with India, even as it keeps up the charade of border negotiations. These negotiations began in 1981, and after a quarter-century of sustained talks, India and China remain the only neighbours in the world not separated even by a mutually defined line of control.


Ambassador Sun’s statement and China’s failure to agree to a new round of border talks just before Hu’s visit send out a loud message: Beijing has little stake in an early settlement of the border disputes with New Delhi because, from the Chinese perspective, unsettled frontiers help keep India under strategic pressure, pinning down large numbers of Indian troops along the Himalayas.

China’s gameplan is simple: maintain peace and tranquility along the frontiers and keep India engaged in border negotiations, but make no concrete moves to resolve the territorial disputes. Yet, cleverly, by putting forward its outrageous claim to Arunachal and more specifically to Tawang, Beijing has sought to place the onus on India for achieving progress in the border talks.

India needs to ask itself why it is always at the receiving end in the territorial disputes with its two regional adversaries, China and Pakistan. Pakistan, not content with the 35% of the original state of Jammu and Kashmir it grabbed in 1948, wants the Kashmir Valley. China, not content with the 20% of J&K it occupies, eyes northeastern Indian territories.

By retreating to a more and more defensive position, New Delhi has brought itself under greater diplomatic pressure. China and Pakistan make aggressive territorial demands, conditioning progress in bilateral talks to Indian concessions on their demands. All that India can do is to reject these expansionist demands, without being able to dispel the popular perception in many quarters that Indian failure to make concessions is holding up progress.

This is because India has not sought to build counter-leverage. India does not lay sustained claim to Chinese- or Pakistani-held territories. Its claim to Pakistani-occupied portions of J&K has not been credible because it has been publicly willing since the 1950s to turn the line of control into the formal border. Similarly, it has for long been willing to settle with China on the basis of the status quo. The negotiating leverage thus lies with China and Pakistan, not with India.

India retreated from Tibet meekly, surrendering the extra-territorial rights it enjoyed there. Under the 1954 Panchsheel Agreement, it voluntarily ceded the postal, telephone and telegraph services it ran in Tibet, accepting the latter as the “Tibet Region of China”.

The Panchsheel accord recorded India’s agreement both to fully withdraw within six months its “military escorts now stationed at Yatung and Gyantse” in the “Tibet Region of China” as well as “to hand over to the Government of China at a reasonable price the postal, telegraph and public telephone services together with their equipment operated by the Government of India in Tibet Region of China”.

Now, the only way India can build counter-leverage against Beijing is to quietly reopen the issue of China’s annexation of Tibet and its subsequent failure to grant promised autonomy to the Tibetans. This can be done by India in a way that is neither provocative nor confrontational. New Delhi can diplomatically make the point that China’s own security and well-being will be enhanced if it reaches out to Tibetans and concludes a deal that brings back the Dalai Lama from his exile in India.

Gently shining the spotlight on the Tibet question will help India turn the tables on China, whose aggressive territorial demands have drawn strength from New Delhi’s self-injurious acceptance of Tibet as part of the People’s Republic.

At a time when China is threatening to divert the waters of River Brahmaputra, the subtle and measured revival of Tibet as an unresolved issue will arm India with leverage and international say on any Chinese effort to dam the Brahmaputra and reroute its waters. With water likely to emerge as an important security-related issue in southern Asia in the years ahead, India can hardly ignore the fact that the Indus, Sutlej and Brahmaputra originate in occupied Tibet.


(Brahma Chellaney is the author of Asian Juggernaut: The Rise of China, India and Japan . He is professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi.)

habc said...

I guess if suckularism does not unite us - anger against China might unite us.