Thread: The siege of Mecca

Originally Posted by Double Edge

By implication, you're saying the reason we've not had any Tibetan dissent in India is as a direct consequence of this. By dissent you mean that more overt displays and support by India of Tibetan identity have been curbed. That China is controlling Tibetan dissent in India thereby blunting any support back home and we are the enforcers.

She fits, doesn't it? Do recall that India has at least turned a blind eye if not direct covert support for Tibetan guerrilla operations launched from Indian soil. sponsored by the CIA and directly authorized by the Dali Lama, a direct contadiction to the terms that he was to stay in India.

That blind eye is no longer there.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Our main interest is in resolving any remaining border disputes and with this in mind, Vajpayee (i think it was) acknowledged that Tibet is a part of China.

What did he get in exchange ? Chinese accepted Sikkim as a part of India.

China settled border disputes with two mortal enemies, Moscow and Hanoi and not all to China's advantage. If both countries really wanted the issue settled, they would have.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

She fits, doesn't it? Do recall that India has at least turned a blind eye if not direct covert support for Tibetan guerrilla operations launched from Indian soil. sponsored by the CIA and directly authorized by the Dali Lama, a direct contadiction to the terms that he was to stay in India.

That blind eye is no longer there.

China settled border disputes with two mortal enemies, Moscow and Hanoi and not all to China's advantage. If both countries really wanted the issue settled, they would have.

Well the SFF it is, special fortier force, a trained para-military force of Tibetan people based at Chakrata(Jaunsar region in my state of uttarakhand), they are still there, and now its not even hushed up, anyone can go to the area, even talk with them.

"Do you see where I am getting at?"

Somewhat. It might serve the purposes of the PRC to officially diminish the input of neighbors WRT independence issues lurking on the Chinese periphery. That, however, neither neuters the efforts by others on those issues nor specifically addresses other strategic concerns such as Malacca and the growing potency/influence of the Indian Navy.

Gwadar serves as a reminder of the PRC's longer view, IMHO and illuminates pertinent S. Asian strategic concerns. To that end, Gwadar also seems to highlight the special place Pakistan holds in the PRC's portfolio. Chinese efforts in locales like Sri Lanka and Myanmar also suggest an eye towards mitigating Indian dominance over these routes.

There appear some differing PRC options at play seemingly designed to ameliorate emerging concerns.

I probably need to stop by your board soon.

Originally Posted by kuku

Well the SFF it is, special fortier force, a trained para-military force of Tibetan people based at Chakrata(Jaunsar region in my state of uttarakhand), they are still there, and now its not even hushed up, anyone can go to the area, even talk with them.

Why dump a useful military force? The French kept the Irish brigades around long after they recognized Hanover rule over Britain.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

You're not seeing the beauty of this. For the Indian political parties to placate any Tibetan dissent, they don't have to do anything but point to a hostile border that isn't quite hostile.

Sir,

I am sure me and you both lack the "political acumen" to see the beauty of these things in their logical perspective.
However, if I had the liberty of having advisory capacity to South Block, I would provide handouts to the same Tibetans(Technically Uighurs), residing in Urumqi and how they are fighiting the Hans with "supposed arms provided by the sub-continental forces."

Col Sir,
I think you got it straight, but then, am I in the know of the things, that Xinxiang is the last straw on the Doubled humped Camel's back, that will decide the battle between the one-with-God-Unparralled and the God which Mao said, non-existencial.

Sure, the keyword here is "long term view" isn't it? I am sure India ocean is on its grand strategy roadmap somewhere. After saying that, for China not able to venture into India ocean will not cause a nationalistic backlash at home, losing Taiwan will.

I am more of a "follow the money" type of guy -- look at where PRC is putting its money. The PRC pumps 500 Billion in foreign exchange swap deals with Japan and South korea in 2008, 100 Billion into ASEAN in 2009 and have been buying Japanese T bonds on a rate of 5 to 7 billion a month. 10 Billion into North Korea's economy just in the first half of 2010 alone. Free trade deals and huge tax breaks to any Taiwanese investements into China. 34 Billion fresh investments into Tibet after the riot. (all numbers are in USD).

Mr 10% could not get 5 billion line-of-credit from the PRC in 2008. he had to ask the IMF.

Originally Posted by S-2

"Do you see where I am getting at?"

Somewhat. It might serve the purposes of the PRC to officially diminish the input of neighbors WRT independence issues lurking on the Chinese periphery. That, however, neither neuters the efforts by others on those issues nor specifically addresses other strategic concerns such as Malacca and the growing potency/influence of the Indian Navy.

Gwadar serves as a reminder of the PRC's longer view, IMHO and illuminates pertinent S. Asian strategic concerns. To that end, Gwadar also seems to highlight the special place Pakistan holds in the PRC's portfolio. Chinese efforts in locales like Sri Lanka and Myanmar also suggest an eye towards mitigating Indian dominance over these routes.

There appear some differing PRC options at play seemingly designed to ameliorate emerging concerns.

I probably need to stop by your board soon.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Because Vietnam is an economic mess and the US is not going to bail out the country by establishing a military presence that the Vietnamese do not want.

The political seeds for the Sino-VN Wars were planted long before Pol Pot even got through puberty. China supported the creation of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia instead of one single Indochina under Vietnamese rule, in effect dividing up a Vietnamese Empire that Hanoi thought rightfully hers.

Sir, at the risk of diverting the thread again, can you point me in the direction of some information about Vietnam's pan-IndoChina aspirations? I haven't been able to find much material on it. Thanks very much.

PS: How unstable is the Vietnamese economy? I haven't studied it much, but it seems to be in the same place that China was in the 1980s, albeit with far worse potential agricultural problems.