http://myinforms.com/en/a/40212133-when ... g-boorish/
“Should the Indian Government fail to change this decision at once, to have the Indian armed forces promptly withdraw from Chinese territory which they have seized unlawfully, responsibility for all the serious consequences arising therefrom will necessarily rest with the Indian Government.” [Note given to the Ambassador of India by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, 1 September 1959. Indian White Paper No. 2]
Strange but true, the tone, tenor and template of the Chinese diplomacy does not seem to have changed in these last 57 years!
“Recent years have seen the Western world giving too many thumbs up to India, but thumbs down to China. India is spoiled. Although the South Asian country’s GDP accounts for only 20 per cent of that of China, it is still a golden boy in the eyes of the West, having a competitive edge and more potential compared to China. The international ‘adulation’ of India makes the country a bit smug in international affairs.”
“Some Indians are too self-centered and self-righteous. On the contrary, the Indian government behaves decently and is willing to communicate. Throwing a tantrum won’t be an option for New Delhi,” it said.
“India’s nationalists should learn how to behave themselves. Now that they wish their country could be a major power, they should know how major powers play their games,” the daily said. [Write up in the Editorial of the State-run Global Times of June 27, 2016 in response to Indian public outrage on India being denied membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group.]
Strange but true, the tone, tenor and template of the Chinese diplomacy does not seem to have changed in these last 57 years!!!! As in the past it still smacks of condescension and is blatantly patronizing bordering on being boorish.
The dictionary defines diplomacy as entailing in the ‘skill of managing international relations’. At people to people level it relates to ‘skill and tact in dealing with people’ – as a corollary: it would, therefore, also apply to a country dealing with other countries. Another explanation of diplomacy is given as – “Diplomacy at its essence is the conduct of relationships, using peaceful means, by and among international actors, at least one of whom is usually governmental. The typical international actors are states and the bulk of diplomacy involves relations between states directly, or between states, international organizations, and other international actors”. [Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, Online Publication August 2013]. Apparently, China does not take cognisance of definitions from foreign language dictionaries and authors! Its diplomacy has the erudite “Chinese characteristics”!!
…it is reportedly alleged that the acting Chinese Ambassador hinted that if India supported China’s stance on the SCS issue it (China) would consider India’s claim to Arunachal Pradesh more favourably!!!!!
Case Study 1
China’s reaction to the verdict of the UN tribunal – The Hague based Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling that its sovereignty claims over South China Sea (SCS) and attempts to enforce them violate international law, was predictable. Since it comes with no enforcement measures, China has outright rejected it. China warned that it would declare the SCS as an Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ). Simultaneously it alerted its military to prepare for any eventuality of conflict. It despatched naval ships to carry out exercises in those waters.
Here in Delhi it is reportedly alleged that the acting Chinese Ambassador hinted that if India supported China’s stance on the SCS issue it (China) would consider India’s claim to Arunachal Pradesh more favourably!!!!! As an afterthought he presumptuously suggested that may be some time in future Andaman and Nicobar Islands could also become disputed?!?! If he did actually say what is alleged then the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should haul him up. Since the internal political noise in our country is so deafening such issues do not find place for debate or discussion in its din. It will be recalled that in November 2006, just days before Chinese Premier Hu Jintao’s state visit to India, Chinese Ambassador to India, Sun Yuxi, stated that the whole of the state of Arunachal Pradesh is Chinese territory. Its histrionics continued and in May 2007, China denied visa to Ganesh Koyu, an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer from Arunachal Pradesh, who was to be a part of a 107 IAS officer study visit to Beijing and Shanghai. China pointed out that Koyu is a Chinese citizen since he belongs to Arunachal Pradesh and hence could visit China without a visa. Once again in June 2009, China tried to block India’s request for US$ 2.9 billion loan from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) as the request included US$ 60 million for flood management, water supply, and sanitation project in Arunachal Pradesh. This was the first time that China sought to broadcast its claim on Arunachal Pradesh in a multi-lateral forum.
In the course of the sixteen rounds of the meetings of the Special Representatives to resolve the boundary issue there is a grapevine going around that China may give up its claim of Arunachal Pradesh if India lets go Tawang. Here it would be pertinent to recount a bit of history. On 25th August, 1959, the Chinese troops came south of the Himalayan watershed and occupied Longju. They have continued to occupy Indian territory there till date. China’s claim to Longju was based on their interpretation of the alignment of McMahon Line. However, it was also a rejection of the principle that the alignment of the McMahon Line would be along the ‘highest watershed’. It is a moot point that after the Chinese unilaterally declared cease-fire at the stroke of mid-night of 21 November 1962, the PLA withdrew north of the McMahon Line in Arunachal Pradesh except in Longju. By the most liberal interpretation of the McMahon Line, Tawang lies well south of it and so probably the Chinese considered it prudent to withdraw from Tawang lest they are seen as reneging on what Zhou Enlai had accepted in 1959 – when he called it “the so called McMahon Line” (Zhou Enlai’s letter of 7th November 1959 to Mr Nehru refers)......