|
|
The Chinese foreign ministry decided it was time to juggle with words to convey a stern warning to New Delhi after Indian foreign minister
The war of words began this morning when Beijing expressed "strong dissatisfaction" over Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh last week. It asked India “not trigger disturbance in the disputed region so as to facilitate the healthy development of China-India relations."
After Krishna made his pitch, the Chinese foreign ministry tweaked its earlier statement to advise India “not stir up trouble” in what it regards as the disputed area of Arunachal Pradesh.
* Were the Chinese emboldened by the fact that Singh avoided visiting Tawang, the area that Beijing has been claiming as its own for a long time?
* Why did China wait for four days after Singh’s Arunachal visit to register its protest?
Beijing is usually very quick to protest whenever anyone behaves differently from its expectations on controversial issues like Arunachal Pradesh, Taiwan, Xingjian, Tibet and the Dalai Lama. For instance, it has questioned the decision of more than a dozen countries to grant visa to the Dalai Lama and even threatened them with trade action.
That the statement came on a day when Pakistani prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani landed in Beijing on his first visit to China as prime minister and immediately met the Chinese president and premier.
* Is Beijing warming up to make an even louder protest against New Delhi’s likely move to permit the Dalai Lama to visit Arunachal Pradesh and possibly Tawang?
Informed sources said a Tawang visit will make the Dalai Lama even more popular among the Tibetans in China and cause additional headaches to Communist Party leaders in Lhasa.
The Prime Minister would have certainly garnered more votes if he chose to visit the shrine associated with the 6th Dalai Lama in Tawang. China’s claim on Tawang rests on the fact that it is the birthplace of the 6th Dalai Lama, who played an important role in the development of Tibetan culture.
Actually a (limited) China vs. India scuffle might not be too bad right now...
With India thoroughly distracted, Pakistan might feel more free to divert resources from defense against India towards taking care of their internal problems.
Hopefully by the time China and India made peace, Pakistan would have been able to stabilize some, making the whole area more secure.
I don't see anything wrong in Singh's visit, I do see lots of wrong in China's statement. Are they trying to make moves on Arunachal Pradesh? Wanting to make sure that there is no undue Indian influence in that area? Even when it belongs to India?
I guess at the heart of the matter is a territorial dispute surrounding the boundary area between India and China:
| Quote: | India says China is illegally occupying 43,180 sq kms of Jammu and Kashmir. On the other hand, China accuses India
of possessing some 90,000 sq km of Chinese territory, mostly in Arunachal Pradesh. |
http://www.hindustantimes.com/restofasia/China-strongly-protests-PM-s-visit-to-Arunachal-Pradesh/464888/H1-Article1-464632.aspx
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Actually a (limited) China vs. India scuffle might not be too bad right now... |
 Surely you're joking ?
| ocalhoun wrote: | | With India thoroughly distracted, Pakistan might feel more free to divert resources from defense against India towards taking care of their internal problems. |
What threat does Pakistan face from India that stops them from diverting their "resources" elsewhere ? What exactly, pray tell, are they defending against ?
A peaceful India is destabilizing Pakistan, and a "distracted" (read, at war) India will stabilize Pakistan ? How ?
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Hopefully by the time China and India made peace, Pakistan would have been able to stabilize some, making the whole area more secure. |
Why do you think a dispute such as Tibet (which is the root cause of Arunachal Pradesh dispute) could be resolved anytime soon ?
Or why do you think Pakistan would stabilize anytime soon if India was at war with China, for that matter ?
How could a war between countries like China and India possibly make "the whole area more secure" ?
Even if we suspend logic and agree to all the above, why should India & China have to suffer to help Pakistan sort out the mess they got themselves into. How is that "not be too bad" ... right now or ever ?
| xalophus wrote: |
What threat does Pakistan face from India that stops them from diverting their "resources" elsewhere ? What exactly, pray tell, are they defending against ?
A peaceful India is destabilizing Pakistan, and a "distracted" (read, at war) India will stabilize Pakistan ? How ?
|
There is no real threat, of course, but a large part of Pakistan's military is deployed in a miniature cold-war defensive stance against India, which means they can't use it on internal problems.
A large-scale India-China war wouldn't increase stability, but a micro-sized conflict just important enough to draw India's troops away from Pakistan might take away Pakistan's excuse for not focusing on internal insurgents long enough to deal with said insurgents.
| ocalhoun wrote: | | but a large part of Pakistan's military is deployed in a miniature cold-war defensive stance against India, which means they can't use it on internal problems. |
I'm wondering how large that is these days. There is nothing as cohesive between two countries as a common enemy and/or friend. I don't disagree that there are enormous differences between the countries, however the United States is a friend of both, and terrorism an enemy of both. I'm not an expert on the Government of India, but I get the perception that Singh is a a great realist and pragmatist. For example, the outcome of the Mumbai terrorism could have been much uglier between Pakistan and India, if Singh and Singh's Government would have been more emotionally patriotic.
| deanhills wrote: | | I'm not an expert on the Government of India, but I get the perception that Singh is a a great realist and pragmatist. For example, the outcome of the Mumbai terrorism could have been much uglier between Pakistan and India, if Singh and Singh's Government would have been more emotionally patriotic. |
Oh, I don't think either side actually wants to go to war with the other, or even has a good reason to... The real reason for their posturing armies towards each other probably has little to do with actual possibility of war, but it still occupies the lion's share of Pakistan's military, when there are more urgent problems Pakistan could be working on.
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Oh, I don't think either side actually wants to go to war with the other, or even has a good reason to... The real reason for their posturing armies towards each other probably has little to do with actual possibility of war, but it still occupies the lion's share of Pakistan's military, when there are more urgent problems Pakistan could be working on. |
I don't see it as large as a lion's share however. I would say the lion's share in Pakistan is fully focussed on the Taliban. I wonder whether it would be completely farfetched if India should offer assistance, as the war with the Taliban seems to have taken a very nasty turn right now.
| deanhills wrote: | | I would say the lion's share in Pakistan is fully focussed on the Taliban. |
source
| Quote: |
The Pakistani military has been in a state of denial. It spends most of its time, energy and resources planning for a war against India, a war on its eastern frontier. That's the war they know and are comfortable with -- a big conventional deployment. And for the last three decades, by seeing India as the enemy, the military could get big budgets -- they had a much larger enemy -- but also know that there is actually only a small possibility of a war. |
source
| Quote: |
Last December the Pakistani Army withdrew an estimated 30,000 troops from the Northwest Frontier Province and the tribal areas to counter a perceived threat from India after Lashkar-e-Taiba launched a deadly military assault on Mumbai. |
As you can see from that, India is still quite a distraction, though Pakistani leaders do seem to understand now that India is not their greatest threat.
Thanks for the links Ocalhoun. I read the comments with interest. I don't doubt there is truth in it, but when I am talking with my friends from Pakistan and India, all I hear is Taliban. During the last week I asked a friend of mine from Pakistan (he is a senior researcher at Aga Khan University in Karachi), why there is still this terrible feud between Pakistan and India, and he then responded that there is not a feud between the people of the two countries, the feud is between politicians of the two countries. And misleading.
He may be wrong of course.
Maybe we need to make a thread about this, to get comment on this from Frihosters in India and Pakistan.
| deanhills wrote: | , the feud is between politicians of the two countries. And misleading.
|
Quite so, though that doesn't prevent it from having real consequences.
| ocalhoun wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | , the feud is between politicians of the two countries. And misleading.
|
Quite so, though that doesn't prevent it from having real consequences. |
You're right Ocalhoun. Especially in countries where your people do not have as much freedom as we are used to. Your point would even be more valid in Pakistan. I am now arguing against my own point, but during the course of the day, in the back of my mind, I was wondering about Zakaria's point of view (in your link), that perhaps politicians could be worried about the US arming Pakistan to the detriment of India. There seems to be a fine balance that needs to be maintained. We've seen that happening with Iraq, prior to the Desert Storm and Kuwait war, when the West had armed Iraq, against Iran, and the consequences of that. In the end the West tackled Iraq as a consequence of having armed Iraq. Sort of a great irony and sadness in that, maybe also a lesson to be learned. Guess the only alternative is for those who really wish to get rid of the Taliban to step in themselves, instead of arming a country that could turn into another Iraq. The ingredients are almost identical here.
There are lots of different stories from different analysts in the media about what is happening in centeral and south central asia. I am a bit confused with different events and things do not appear very simple.
A famous theory among the people in Pakistan is that this more a game then crises. It is famous that Taliban were brought up against the pro-russion northern alianse by US itself. US may still be using Taliban to create sufficient unrest in Afghanistan and Pakistan so that US can stay in the region both physically and politically. We already know that US is planning to increase the number of military forces in Afghanistan. US staff in pakistan is also increasing and there are plans to bring armed personels in the coutry. US drones are already flying in the Pakistani region.
Politically, US has strong influence on bath Pakistani and Afghan government. India seems to be more a player in the game then subjects. Why US is concerned about the region. Very difficult question. Pakistan has nuclear arms, Iran and Chaina are around. This is a complex theory but very famous and I have heard lots of people chanting similar stories.
So I cannot make any personal opinion about the state of afairs.
| harismushtaq wrote: | | US may still be using Taliban to create sufficient unrest in Afghanistan and Pakistan so that US can stay in the region both physically and politically. |
... Really?
I'm pretty sure staying in the region, at least physically, is the last thing the US wants to do. It's quite expensive, after all.
And that troop increase in Afghanistan is still theoretical; it has been requested by the military leadership, but the president has so far refused to make a decision about it.
| harismushtaq wrote: | | A famous theory among the people in Pakistan is that this more a game then crises. It is famous that Taliban were brought up against the pro-russion northern alianse by US itself. US may still be using Taliban to create sufficient unrest in Afghanistan and Pakistan so that US can stay in the region both physically and politically. We already know that US is planning to increase the number of military forces in Afghanistan. US staff in pakistan is also increasing and there are plans to bring armed personels in the coutry. US drones are already flying in the Pakistani region. |
I've heard this too. It is a very common story that is told everywhere in the Middle East. I don't see it as a "theory" or "story" though, but more like anti-US propaganda. People in Pakistan can be very easily swayed by propaganda like this. Probably important that the US needs to pay attention, check out the sources, and do media campaigns, particularly radio in Pakistan to rebut this as part of warfare against the Taliban. The Taliban is obviously fighting the US on more than one front, and the psychological part of trying to influence opinions of the masses is a crucial part of their warfare.
| deanhills wrote: | | Probably important that the US needs to pay attention, check out the sources, and do media campaigns, particularly radio in Pakistan to rebut this as part of warfare against the Taliban. |
Or, go WWII-style on them: drop thousands of pounds of leaflets on cities from bombers. ^.^
| ocalhoun wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | Probably important that the US needs to pay attention, check out the sources, and do media campaigns, particularly radio in Pakistan to rebut this as part of warfare against the Taliban. |
Or, go WWII-style on them: drop thousands of pounds of leaflets on cities from bombers. ^.^ |
That would be much too obvious ....  Seriously though, the radio is probably one of the most powerful tools of media for people from Pakistan. They are glued to it for news, and that is their source of discussions with one another.
| deanhills wrote: | | That would be much too obvious .... |
It would indeed be obvious... but take a cue from Hitler: if you say something loud enough and often enough, it becomes true.
| deanhills wrote: | | I've heard this too. It is a very common story that is told everywhere in the Middle East. I don't see it as a "theory" or "story" though, but more like anti-US propaganda. |
Well, the 'fact' that the Taliban was set-up by the US is plain wrong - it wasn't.
The fact that the Taliban was greatly encouraged and aided (both politically and militarily) by the US is pretty undeniable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Origin
The conspiracy theory about the US using the Taliban for its own agenda has, indeed, been around for a while. Sibal Edmonds was one of the first to make the public allegation.
| Bikerman wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | I've heard this too. It is a very common story that is told everywhere in the Middle East. I don't see it as a "theory" or "story" though, but more like anti-US propaganda. |
Well, the 'fact' that the Taliban was set-up by the US is plain wrong - it wasn't.
The fact that the Taliban was greatly encouraged and aided (both politically and militarily) by the US is pretty undeniable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Origin
The conspiracy theory about the US using the Taliban for its own agenda has, indeed, been around for a while. Sibal Edmonds was one of the first to make the public allegation. |
I do believe that this is quite common knowledge. I'm sure everyone knows the role the US played with building the Taliban up when the Russians were still present in Afghanistan. This is not very different from the UK and France when they were building Iraq up during Iraq's war with Iran. In the meanwhile much has changed by the time the US invaded Iraq and not a word mentioned at the time of how Britian and France had been responsible for building Saddam's arsenal at the end of the eighties. Alliances change all the time. Presently the US role is completely different to what it has been at the time when the Russians were in Afghanistan, and has been consistently different for a number of years sufficiently to say that it is at war with the Taliban. Granted that there is an element of truth in the "story", but a historic one, and one that is primarily used for propaganda to get anti-US sentiment going among the people of Pakistan, whose favours the Taliban are competing for.
There seems to be lots going on that we don't really get to hear about. It would appear that the Italian Secret Service last year bribed the Taliban to get them to not attack their troops near Kabul. Then when the Italians at that post got to be replaced by the French, they neglected to tell the French how they got to "buy" peace. The French came totally unprepared and 10 soldiers paid with their lives.
Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6875376.ece
|
