If the real intention of the People's Republic of China is to contain India, hold them south of the Himalaya's, keep them at war with Pakistan and keep them as uninvolved in most of Southeast Asia as possible ... well, then their complaints against the United States for picking on them in similar (though less blatant) ways is incredibly hypocritical. Their intention does seem pretty clear though. It does seem to be very much along those lines anyways. Afterall, who wouldn't want to handicap one of the few nations on Earth that can potentially be an immediate threat to your nation?

Naturally, their official policy is something different altogether.

But perhaps all of that can be put in the past as negotiations continue. Time will tell. Keep us posted of course.

well we had it u attacked it


well 1962 was during a time when soviet union, united states and numourous other coutries surrounded china where border threats roam, off course losing an inch of land was considered bad then when the cold war esculated


and anyways, that area is ihabited by tibetians, which is considered chinese

Originally Posted by MadeInChina

well we had it u attacked it


well 1962 was during a time when soviet union, united states and numourous other coutries surrounded china where border threats roam, off course losing an inch of land was considered bad then when the cold war esculated


and anyways, that area is ihabited by tibetians, which is considered chinese

Is that the only basis that China has for claiming Arunachal Pradesh? Find out more if you can, certainly. Lets not forget that only China has made a determination that all ethnic Tibetans are ethnic Chinese. And once again, ethnicity is a terrible measure of what is or is not owned by whom.

I don't see China is using ethnicity as an argument here. Lets put this a bit subjective, if Tibet were considered to be part of China and governed by China, then the Tibetans should be considered as Chinese with Tibetan ethinicity. For example, California is part of U.S.A, and it is governed by the USA government, then all Californians (Californians =>exclude permanent residents, H1s, illegal residents, and ones with other states' residencies) are Americans.

Originally Posted by Boobies

I don't see China is using ethnicity as an argument here. Lets put this a bit subjective, if Tibet were considered to be part of China and governed by China, then the Tibetans should be considered as Chinese with Tibetan ethinicity. For example, California is part of U.S.A, and it is governed by the USA government, then all Californians (Californians =>exclude permanent residents, H1s, illegal residents, and ones with other states' residencies) are Americans.

Right, no argument there. So, similar to Kashmir, what Pakistan controls is peopled by Pakistanis and what India controls is peopled by Indians, etc. Tibet controlled by China is Chinese, and a chunk of land that is full of Tibetans, but that has alwasy been controlled by India, is a bunch of ethnic Tibetan Indians, and are not Chinese in any way.

But all of that still doesn't answer my question: What basis is China using to claim it?

I am a little bit undecided about Tibet issue. However, as a native born Chinese, I do want to see returning of Indian land in the future. No , not 100 years later, hehehe.

lol, tibet is china's, no argument, for tibetans are chinese, not just hans

Tibet is part of China today because China was strong and Tibet was not capable of stopping their nation of be taken and annexed. That doens't make Tibetan = Chinese. It makes the Tibetans living in China Chinese.

lol, tibet is china's, no argument, for tibetans are chinese, not just hans

Tibet is "in" China today, Tibetans weren't ever Chinese, But I think in a few years due to forceful imposition of chinese culture and strict communist laws those Tibetans will become chinese eventually in time.

once again china is made up of 56 ethenic groups, however dominated by han we cannot ignore the minorities that live in china