Comment by lenkite

Comment by lenkite 20 hours ago

5 replies

> The point is once India stops FUDDING around and learn some history/media literacy 101, maybe there can be productive border ratification, again like 12/14 other countries instead of living under the delusion...

Lol, what ? Are you saying that all the dozen nations are now happy with the post-2023 Chinese map and India is the sole loner and must educate itself ? Is it a delusion that Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, etc object to ~90% of the South China Sea now claimed, including EEZs up to 200 nautical miles away which also breaks UNCLOS - which China ratified.

PS: Even if we stick to your very strange position of ignoring international boundaries of past treaties because of current government objections, the China map did expand outside of "past claims" - it officially now covers the South China Sea as part of China's sovereign territory. India is not the only objector - as you falsely state.

maxglute 20 hours ago

No I'm saying nations party to SCS maritime drama always protest when PRC regularly asserts their territory, just like they do to each other, because that's customary geopolitical response. And it's 5, not a dozen, like you don't need to make up numbers, it's literally a handful.

With respect to land border, yes India is infact the sole loner that needs to educate itself. 12/14 other PRC land borders had no problem settling, again most with MORE PRC concessions. 1/14 Bhutan wants to settle but can't because India. That leaves only India who has this infantile notion that there is some fantasy world where borders can be settled in 100/0 Indian favour which is frankly medically retarded expectation only a child can have. Any proper history education will teach India only way to get 100/0 is loser in war and frequently not even then. So yes education away from that level of delusional magical thinking is apt.

SCS disputees also you know dispute with each other, everyone protests each other and with except of PH gets along fine with PRC. Also PRC position on SCS is legal under UNCLOS. Or rather not illegal. Or more technically correct, can't even be illegal. TLDR useful idiots believe PCA ruling is actual UNCLOS ruling when it's manifestly not (it's basically mock UN US+PH did on PCA stationary with anti PRC cosplayers). UN/ITLOS/ICJ/UNCLOS has no formal position on PCA ruling MEANING ITS NOT INTERNATIONAL LAW despite the heavy propaganda. Since PRC not party to optional arbitutaion clause, i.e. again no ratify no care, besides which UNCLOS cannot determine sovereingty claims so the idea PRC breaks UNCLOS is so retarded it's not even wrong since there is literally no mechanism in UNCLOS to rule PRC claims as illegal... hence PRC is in fact in compliance with her UNCLOS accession obligations.

PS: 1. No again this is history 101, PRC has always had 9dash, which it treats as domestic delimitations, it used to be 11 dash under ROC, i.e. it has always been part of past claims, for decades since post war. CHINESE (PRC/ROC) CLAIMS HAS OFFICIALLY ALWAYS COVERED SCS, PRC formally inherited claims from ROC when UN recognition switched and ROC claims proceeded that. I said India is the only LAND BORDER disputee, i.e. bilateral disputee, 1vs1 which should on paper be much simple negotiation, hence PRC able to ratify 12/14 land border in rapid negotiations. But somehow not Indian, and by extension Bhutan. Because clearly it's the other 12-13/14 who are outliers /s. SCS is a 5 party shitshow and much harder to resolve and everyone objects to eachothers overlapping claims, even then PRC ceding Tonkin to Vietnam makes PRC one of the better actors. So if you want to do the numberes, then 12/14+5, i.e. 12/19 PRC land+maritime disputees are solved, aka plurality. The 5/5 maritime cannot be solved bilaterally and will remain shitshow. The on paper low hanging fruit 2/14 land border is held up by India.

2. PRC is not ignoring past treaties, it's simply not fucking subject to treaties it doesn't sign. The very strange position is Indians believing a treaty between India and UK over Tibet that ROC EXPLICLITLY REPUDIATED AT TIME OF NOT SIGNING, I.E. ROC -> PRC DOES NOT APPROVE OF THIS TREATY AND EXPLICITY NOTIFIED PARTIES AT THE TIME, is somehow a valid treaty. Absolute toddler logic.

  • lenkite 18 hours ago

    Unfortunately, our positions differ based on international boundaries ratified before independence. (Also, laughable that PRC sticks to ROC claims on one-hand, while it also simultaneously denies them on the other hand - aka Taiwan)

    Let me address the major point that you bring up. PRC lays claim to 125,000 square KM - most of which is currently Indian territory. That is nearly ~8-10x of any other nation that China settled with - well, excluding ROC (Taiwan) - which China has also not "settled" with. Today, dozens of modern nations fit into 125,000 square KM of territory.

    India does not need to "educate itself" - it has had over 20 rounds of talks with China recently and China has utterly not budged from claiming the FULL state (along with some adjacent territory too). It is not India, but China that is not willing to concede. If the dispute was merely ~10k sq KM, it would have already been solved. There are some very good reasons behind China's intractable position. This is extraordinarily resource rich territory that is utterly untapped by India due to constitutional protections offered to this state and its indigenous tribals. China, obviously, has no such protective obligations.

    But for India, this state is populated by voters, native elected representatives and constitutionally protected indigenous tribes. There is utterly no way voters are going to even acknowledge being associated with China in any way, with utterly zero Chinese ethnicity present. Full ~120k sq km of a bio-diverse, resource-rich and populated-by-voters living in a democratic state for over 75 years, being utterly claimed by China is ridiculous and does not lend itself to any possible "settlement".

    • maxglute 17 hours ago

      E: last reply

      TW is not a territory dispute, it's a unsolved civil war, i.e. PRC is not intending to split territory with TW, like other disputes, TW is winner takes all.

      What PRC claims from India is not what PRC actually wants. PRCs offered package swap deal with India for decades (and imo continues to be) with India was "east for west". PRC gets 40k sqkm Aksai China claims it currently defacto controls, basically empty land where no one lives. India gets Arunachal Pradesh, i.e. what India defacto controls, the state. AKA just formalize border at where both sides controls, there's no actual PRC interest in AP the state and the people, because is as you recognized ridiculous.

      AP just barginning chip for "east for west" swap, same with PRC claims on Tawang that India + western media likes to play up as some Dalai + Tawang super combo to threaten PRC Tibet succession crisis. Reality is Tibet is no longer a restive region, it's been thoroughly securitized and PRC can print their own dalai lama and rule Tibetians as they see fit. It's just another pressure point because India taking 20 rounds of talks and 40+ years have gotten nowhere leaves no option but accept the status quo - which PRC doesn't want, they want to ratify borders - hence pile on pressure via salami slicing for India to accept package deal.

      Ultimately I think PRC fine with "east for west". All China wants is their bit of tundra for G219 highway to connect Xinjiang and Tibet. They don't want some full Indian state and the people and the resources, because that's also logistically ridiculous. PRC is not going to go over the Tibetan plateau to mine untapped resources in AP when they have entire Tibetan plateau to mine.

      TLDR Indian media keeps insinuating PRC wants all of AP when PRC doesn't, it just wants the border formalized at current occupation/administered areas (i.e. no mass people resettlement needed). Just ratify borders and stop encouraging tibetan exile shenanigans, same way India doesn't like Canada entertaining Khalistanis. no need to go back to pre dalai lama asylum hindi chini bhai bhai, but also no paitence to wait another 20/50/forever years.

      • lenkite 17 hours ago

        I am aware its your last reply, but you are rather wrong on this point:

        > TLDR Indian media keeps insinuating PRC wants all of AP when PRC doesn't, it just wants the border formalized at current occupation/administered areas

        This is wrong. This was confirmed by China themselves. Latest Chinese actions included issuing Chinese names for towns, mountains and rivers in Arunachal Pradesh - continued assertion of demands, even after talks. This includes detainment of state citizens unless they acknowledge to be part of China and get a Chinese Visa. PRC most certainly wants Arunachal Pradesh and also apparently its citizens - can you point me to a single source otherwise ?

        There was also no mention in any of the >20 recent talks - even in Chinese media - of any package swap of Aksai Chin for Arunachal Pradesh. Today PRC states clearly that all of Arunachal is "Zangnan" / "South Tibet".

        • maxglute 15 hours ago

          Not confirmation, that's continued salami slicing sheninagans i.e. cartographic normalization and stapled visas instead of stamped visas to delegitmize AP citizenship. PRC will always rhetorically state AP is south Tibet because that's just how geopolitics works, you don't preemptively concede you don't claim something you claim even if said claim is to get something else because that weakens claim. PRC will always publically hold position all of AP is Tibet, i.e. maximalist bargaining position, until package swap is accepted first behind close doors because anything else weakens claim.

          Package swap deals is not something offered in low level talks, it's leader to leader offer, i.e. Zhou Enlai to Nehru, Deng Xiaoping to Ghandi. Modi's been dipping meeting Xi (or vice versa if you want) until last year, right before trump2 and it's been rollercoaster geopolitics. Until India, PRC, US triangulation / dynamic becomes cleares and Xi/Modi relations normalize the only thing boundry talks do is what it always does, maintainence work with some progress towards normalize relations where high level boundary talks can start, as in actual formal settlement, not LAC management homework, i.e. we're past generals talking in tents to ministers meeting in capital, and maybe one day leaders discussing swap.

          In the meantime, in addition to talks, the new normal PRC wants to set is to continue adding pressure via salami slice and rachet pressure because PRC isn't interested in settling for status quo (talks) where nothing happens, i.e. India wanting pre 2020 status quota ante, basically PRC perceives to be (decades of) deliberate stalling, so PRC will continue to add pressure so situation doesn't settle into unproductive status quo ante dynamic again. Bluntly it is better for PRC if PRC/India draws blood every once in a while to keep the pressure up because that might lead to earlier settlement than the alternative, drawing patrol routes and words which hasn't lead anywhere. Anything that can move the settlment clock forward.

          E: alright really last reply, you can believe what you want. But ultimately, ask yourself, do you think PRC can invade and hold Arunachal Pradesh, through Assam Himalayas. Exceedingly unlikely, geographically logistics harder to sustain than TW. It's more trouble than it's worth.