Quote:
Originally Posted by Tangyiying
Quote:
Tangyiying,
You seemed to be a little ignorant in the modern world history section: The Government of India officially recognized Tibet (barring Askai Chin and parts of Jammu&Kashmir illegally ceeded to PRC by Govt of Pakistan) as an "Autonomous Province" of PRChina; just as the Government of PRChina recognized the "stolen lands south of the imfamous (sic) McMahon Line" as the Indian Union's State of Sikkim. Both retain token claims on each other's territories to continue pressuring each other.
|
Thanks for the information. But don't you think the 1962 Indian expedition (OK, indian call it a invasion) was based on that line? |
This iterration of the India-China agreement was made in 2004.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tangyiying
Quote:
|
Beyond those basic facts, Tibet's role as a real buffer-zone is limited in the age of ballistic missiles and thermo-nuclear warheads.
|
I do disagree here, buffer states by no means less essential in this age. The war is not about throwing balls at each other. You have to land your forces to the enemy's side. Quite same with past. and you have to cross the buffer state before attack is launched. that gives the precaution to the othe side. |
No side
has to do anything - especially not something that their opponent wants them to do, and especially not when thermonuclear balls are being thrown at each other; any assumption to the contrary is the mother of all charlie-foxtrots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tangyiying
Quote:
|
Likewise I would expect that for level-headed Chinese and Indians, with better idea of how to achieve a quality of life, the role of Tibet as lebensraum for the Han would also be limited. Either way, the greatest national security challenge to their respective countries are their own citizenry... not the Tibetans, nor each other.
|
good wish, but hard to get it. like everywhere, nationalism prevails and things are more complicate than they appear to be. Not all the people on this earth want despute settled, things pacified. |
It is not a wish, it is a reality and a policy espoused by both the Chinese and the Indian governments to/with differing degrees. CREF their various policies since 1970s that fundamentally shift the paradigm from quantity to quality (family planning, education, investment etc.). Nationalism is a different issue, and hardly as fundamental as the issues that were present in the 1950s and 1960s, which is what you seemed to put up in the post I first quoted.