Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:48:20 GMT

In article <BvB98q.JCw@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter) writes:
>In article <92Sep28.151848edt.145@orasis.vis.toronto.edu> liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
>>hmmm, Nepal, maybe as long as they don't buy some military trucks and
>>anticraft guns from China to "Threaten" India!  and India will swing
>>its fat ass to start a total trade embargo to that poor land locked
>>country.  Bhutan, I am not so sure, isn't the Indian Army there?  
>>There is one more small kingdom between China & India, can't think
>>of the name, had been all but annexed by India.  Come to regional
>>terriorism/imperialism, you have to say that India is far ahead of
>>China, behaving like a total bully in South Asian sub-continent.   
>
>The Indian army is *not* in Bhutan.  The kingdom you are thinking of 
>is Sikkim.  I think Sikkim was annexed by the British, not the Indians  --
>though I stand to be corrected here.  
>
well, what's the difference, India still want it, does it?  It just continued
the regional bully role Queen Victoria's Empire.  As I recall, British(Indian)
troops and then spin doctors was working on Tibet really fast before
the Brits fucked up in both WWs and shrank their empire, first by invading
Tibet sacking Lasha when when China was in internal turmoil and too weak
to fight for its territory, and then bribe Tibetan diplomats to sign
away bordering territories to India behind both the Regional Tibetan
government and the central government's back.  


>Whether or not India occassionally uses its trade muscle to impose 
>on the Nepalis, Nepal is a soverveign country.  I have a Nepali
>visitor at this moment who would vehemently attest to that fact. 
>
Sure it's a soverveign country, as long as it doesn't sneeze in front
of India.  By the way, Panama and Granda are also soverveign countries,
but who gives a shit about them?  

>Tibet, on the other hand, was taken over by force.  This, it seems 
>to me, is tantamount to "behaving like a total bully."
> 
Can you explain to me how it is done?  Do you know, before the communists
ever existed, they are "Tibetan" troops in "China", and "Chinese" troops
in "Tibet", and "Muslim("Hui") troops all over the place too.  China unified
itself during a civil war, good or bad, of course there will be one group
of people shooting others, what do you expect?  If you consider anyone 
owns 500 rifles & men and speaks a different dialect/language, eat
wheat or QinKe or rice or Pita bread before 1949 China might as well be 178 
independent and soverviegn countries.  You would like that, won't you?
1/3 of them would still be british protectrates/colonies, northern 1/4
will be in Russian/Soviet hands, japan will have its "ManchuKuo" and
independent and automous provinces all over the place, and the Americans
will still be prompting free-trade for uncle sam's surpluses all over
the 178 countries, and send in a couple of carriers to squash
some banana republics for let's say selling opium to its citizens or
something.  Hey, China would just like the free & democratic
nations of Africa.  ;->   

 
>-- 
>Conrad Richter                     richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca
>Richters Herbs                     71550.3411@compuserve.com
>Goodwood, ON L0C 1AO Canada        Tel 416-640-6677 / Fax 416-640-6641


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china