國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
written and embodied in the United Nations Charter and other specific laws. We will see if China chooses to be close to these international law principles or to stay away from them. And we will decide whether China’s attitude lead to more opportunities for conflicts and make them a threat to other states in the end.
3.4 Methodology
There are two main goals of this thesis, one is to test the realistic China Threat theory; and the other is, if there is any gap between the theory and the reality, then we should provide another point of view for alternative and revising it. In other words, the two goals of this thesis are about how the reality responds to the China Threat suspicion.
According to Yin, a case study research can be a choice of methods when a researcher asks the questions about how a phenomenon happens or develops, and why it happens—especially when the researcher wants some in-depth enlightenments from a real-life circumstance in its context but he or she has little control over the event32. For this reason, case studies are commonly used as a research method in social science investigation including international relations.
Case studies are usually seen as a basic method for qualitative
32 Robert K. Yin, (2009), Case Study Research, Design and Methods. California:
SAGE Publications, p. 10.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
researches. Since a case study shows its advantage with providing the richness and extensiveness of evidences, and so that it allows a researcher to perceive meaningful characteristics from both individual and holistic levels from the real-life events under context.
By extracting data from an event, the case study researchers interpret the event, endow it with meaningful characteristics, and try to construct a picture and give an illustration from a certain perspective. Thus, case studies are suited for testing whether a theory is consistent with the reality33.
A historical-comparative research (H-C research) can serve for our purposes as well. Since history means events which have happened in the past, in other words, it means records of the past and the experiences outside the researcher’s daily life34.
For the reason above, in this thesis we are going to gather and analyze historical evidences to some extent and so that to reveal aspects of the interaction over a long period of time between actors. In fact, a historical comparative researcher is always trying to see through the eyes of those being studied and to re-construct the reality of another time and
33 David A. de Vaus, (2001), Research Design in Social Research. London: SAGE Publications, p. 222
34 W. Lawrence Neuman, (2006), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Pearson Education, p. 430.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
place35.
Though different research methods fill different needs and situations while investigating in various social science topics, it is not necessary to distinguish these two methods exclusively from each other. In fact, research methods are usually overlapping on techniques and targets. For a case study and an H-C research, they could be consistent with each other under these dimensions:
First, both of the two methods are suited for asking questions about how a phenomenon happens, and why it happens? With their ability to deal with data of multiple sources, case studies and H-C researches can provide explicit descriptions and illuminations of certain events. Thus, both of them are capable of testing theories though a deductive way.
On the other hand, either case studies or H-C researches usually provide descriptions with a specific perspective, for both of them are aiming at seeing through the eyes of those being studied, therefore, subjective views are inevitable in these two methods36.
There are two main purposes in this thesis. First, we are trying to test the realistic China threat theory on territorial issues. Second, if it is necessary, we will make complements and revisions for the flaws of China threat from a constructivist perspective.
35 Ibid., p. 423.
36 Ibid., p. 423.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
The unit of analysis in the thesis is state which takes actions. And when we refer to conceptions like culture, identity, interest and behavior, they are confined within certain period of time. In fact, according to the cases in the following chapters, we will put most of our attentions on the process of interactions in contemporary between China and its neighbor states. Thus, the concepts and interpretations will be mainly extracted from historical evidences after the CCP government built its regime in 1949.
According to Yin, there are six sources of evidence for a case study researcher37; and from an H-C research point of view, Neuman classifies these sources of evidence into primary sources, secondary sources and recollections38. As an investigator who wants to “see through the eyes of those being studied” and rebuild the picture of the event which has happened, the primary sources collected directly from those who lived in the past would be the first choice. However, in most of the circumstances, a researcher could get more access to secondary sources indirectly written or documented by others. In reality, evidences of source usually scatter around and appear incompletely. In fact, there is no single source has a dominating advantage over other sources, and various sources can be highly complementary.
37 These six sources of evidence are: documentations, archival records, interviews, direct observations, participant observations and physical artifacts. Robert K. Yin, (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods. California: SAGE Publications, pp. 85-89.
38 Neuman, Supra note 34, pp. 430-432.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
In the following study, we still have preference for primary sources coming directly from people or organizations at the time like letters, communiqués, announcements and other news reports. Nonetheless, actually it is difficult to get access to the direct sources under some conditions. To get a broader picture of the event, secondary sources and recollections like personal memoirs, autobiographies, interviews, related and studies done by others would also be collected and made part of our study.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Chapter 4. Wars and Conflicts before 1979
4.1 Sino-Indian War
Historical Background
In the past thousand years, the two ancient giant countries—China and India—have been distinguished by the Himalayas. The mountain plays a role as a natural watershed at the south central Asia. Behind the northern Himalayas ridge is the Tibet Plateau, and the unfolding area following the south foothills is the Indo-Gangetic Plain. Between the two giant countries, there are smaller countries located among the mountain areas, including Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, Burma and so forth. In different phases of the history, these small countries show their allegiance toward the two giants alternatively—sometimes they admit China as their suzerain, and present tributes to the Chinese emperor; sometimes they put themselves under the protection of India. These small countries scattering around the mountain areas are usually seen as buffer zones between the two giants. However, there are still unknown tribes and unclaimed lands in this lengthy mountain area, especially in the western and eastern parts of it.
In the 19th century, after dominating the India Subcontinent, the British Empire has been making efforts to build a firmed and assured boundary line with its neighbor, China. However, it failed to reach this goal after all, which consequentially brought about the boundary disputes
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
for India and China in the mid of 20th century1.
Two Disputed Lines
There are two boundary lines that the British left pending for India after the latter acquired its independence from the Empire2.
1 In fact, in the historical phase of British India, boundary lines had been changing several times based on the relationships between British Empire and its neighbors surrounding the India Subcontinent, which mainly reflected its concerns about Russia at the west and China at the north; furthermore, different opinions from interior toward the boundary policy also made it staggering most of the time.
Neville Maxwell, (2000), India’s China War. New York: Random House, p. 3, p. 20.
2 In the conflict of 1962, the events leading to war mainly happened separately at the northwestern sector and northeastern sector of the boundary frontier. Though the underlying cause of the war came from India’s “forward policy”, which comprised the entire northern boundary area with China, and there were also combats at the north central sector during the war. See Picture 3.1.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Picture 1. Western theater and Eastern theater of Sino-India War in 1962 Adapted from: The Economist
In the first decade of the 20th century, the Chinese government wanted to further confirm its power over Tibet by transforming it from a vassal state to a province of China, which got the nerves of the British India3. The intention to consolidate power over Tibet was considered would make the British India lose the buffer zone with its dreadful neighbor. Owing to this concern, the British held a tripartite conference at Simla in 1913, which was trying to persuade the Chinese government to separate Tibet into two parts—the inner and the outer. The British India convinced that by separating Tibet into two parts, it can maintain the outer one as a buffer zone while leaving the inner one still claimed by
3 Before being absorbed as one province of China in 1910, Tibet had maintained itself a rather independent relationship with China, which also had been providing as a buffer between British India and Russia. Maxwell, Supra note 1, p. 41.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
China. But China disregarded this proposal, and the British failed on its goal4.
The Simla Conference was continuingly taken place from 1913-1914, since the Chinese government had rejected the proposal that setting the Tibet into two parts, the British government turned to Tibet on its own without informing China. In 1914, during the Simla Conference, the representatives of the British government and Tibet mutually exchanged letters, in which both of them agreed on a border line roughly delimited from the east side of Bhutan westward to the northwest area of Burma.
According to the letter, the two parties substantially pushed the frontier line of British India northwards further into Tibet including Tawang, where had been penetrated by Tibet in culture as well as administrative institutions. On the other words, according to the mutual border delimitation agreement, Tibet ceded over 30,000 square miles to the British5. Tibet signed the draft treaty with the British government in exchange for seeking a more independent status against China, which the British promised that they would provide the help—although they did not realize it in the end. At the same time, the representative of Chinese
4 Luke T. Chang, (1982), China’s Boundary Treaties and Frontier Disputes. New York: Oceana Publications. p. 65.
5 According to Maxwell mentioned in his book, there is no clause specifying the accurate latitude and longitude of the “McMahon line” on the map of the secret treaty between the British and Tibet. Which we can assure by checking the original treaty map released later (see Picture. 3.3.1 and 3.3.2). Maxwell, Supra note 1, pp. 48-49;
Chang, Supra note 4, pp. 67-70; Claude Arpi, (2013), 1962 and the McMahon Line Saga. Delhi: Lancer Publishers. p. 139.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
government was totally excluded from this secret negotiation.
This secretly-delimited border line drew by the British and Tibet, was just named after the representative of the British government at that time, McMahon, which was called the McMahon line. After Simla Conference, the British government did not publish the result they gained with Tibet until 1937, nor the India government who follow up belatedly in 19546.
6 Although the British government and Tibet agreed the secret letters exchange should bind both of them, the arrangement in fact violated the Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting Tibet signed in 1906, in which the British has promised that it will never annex the territory of Tibet. It also violated the Anglo-Russian Entente signed in 1907, in which the British has promised that it will not transact any affairs directly with Tibet unless it was introduced through the China government. And it may just because of this reason, not only both parties signed the treaty furtively, even the first time while the British government published the McMahon line on its map, the 30,000 square miles territory ceded by Tibet still was marked as “disputed”.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Picture 2. McMahon Line and the disputed area Adapted From: University of Kentucky,
http://webteach.mc.uky.edu/geo330/himalayas/maps/002.htm
On the other hand, the British government also drew a line at the northwest frontier area of India unilaterally, by which it tried to keep the Russian power out of this area.
From 1946 to 1947, the British government dispatched their officials to investigate this uninhabited area. In the investigation, they drew a line from Pangong Lake northerly to the Spiti River. However, an area joint with Tibet at the northwest fringe was remained “uncertain”. This flaw was made up by a surveyor named W. H. Johnson in 1865. He made a proposal to include Aksai Chin into Kashmir. Even without formally informing the Chinese government, the “Johnson line” was widely
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
printed in British published maps since 18687.
However, in the early 1880s, China began to put their attention to the south extreme of their territory. The Chinese erected a boundary stone at the Karakorum Pass to claim this area, and the British government confirmed it in 1892. Although China did not have a specific delimitation after the claim8. After China’s 1892 demarcation, it also made a claim to the British government that Aksai Chin belonged to China. The British compromised to China’s claim9, yet China did not respond to this.
Furthermore, after India gained its independence from the British Empire, it inherited the arrangement of Johnson line, even though the government never exerted any power in the region since then10.
From Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai to Warfare
There was a honeymoon between India and China after World War II, when the former obtained its independence from the colonizer and the latter was taken over by the Chinese Communist Party.
After 1947, the Cold War built a bipolar system in national society,
7 Maxwell, Supra note 1, pp. 19-28.
8 Ibid. p.30.
9 Which brought about the Macarthney-Mcdonald line in 1899. The line pointed that the British India and China had half of the Aksai Chin tract respectively. Ibid. pp.
33-34.
10 Chang, Supra note 4, pp. 63-65.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
confrontation between the Western bloc led by the U.S. and the Eastern bloc led by the USSR has unfolded. Beside the two super powers, in 1955, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) led by the Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, was established. The NAM was attended mainly by the developing countries of the Third World, who claimed they are neutralized from the two mainstreams—the capitalism camp and the communist camp.
However, one of the NAM’s fundamentals was based on
“Panchsheel”—the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. The Principles was proposed in 1954 between India and China, which indicates mutual respects for sovereignty and territory, mutual non-aggression, mutual benefit and so forth11.
In fact, since the beginning of Nehru’s tenure, his administration has been holding a friendly attitude toward China. In addition, India was the first non-socialism state who recognizes the People’s Republic China after the CCP took over power. On many occasions, India also worked actively urging the United Nations to accept statues of the “New China”
governed by the CCP—rather than the Republic of China governed by Kuomintang who had fled to Taiwan12.
11 The five principles of peaceful coexistence are that: mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual non-aggression, mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence.
Maxwell, Supra note 1, p. 79.
12 Other countries held the same attitude like, for instance, the USSR. Ibid., p. 93.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
On the other hand, the Chinese government viewed the independent India as a relatively progressive and friendly regime while comparing it with other countries of the capitalism camp. Just like China itself and other Afro-Asian and Latin American countries, India has suffered from imperialism for a long time. For this reason, the Chinese believed that India stood at the same place with them to some extent. The Chinese believed that, China, India and other repressed countries had the same goals to fight against imperialism and to protest the peace in the world13. Thus, the CCP government thought they should maintain a relationship with India so that China and India could combat their common enemy—especially the American Empire.
The friendship of India and China reached its peak in 1956. A popular slogan “Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai” praising the brotherhood between the two ancient giants penetrated everywhere14.
For some uncertain reasons, until the mid of 1950s, neither India nor China’s prime ministers officially raise the unresolved border issues left by Britain even though there were several meetings between the two countries in this period, and both of them had recognized the problems on their common border. In 1956, when the Chinese Prime Minister Chou En-lai was meeting with Nehru in India, he tried to prompt the
13 “Cong Zhing Yin Bian Jie Wen Ti Zai Lun Ni He Lu De Zhe Xue,” Remin Ribao, editorial, October 27, 1962.
14 Maxwell, Supra note 1, p. 93.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
controversy of McMahon line. Nonetheless, Chou did not mention about another disputed line at the west sector—the Johnson line. And they did not reach a specific resolution on this at that time15.
China asserted that not only the McMahon line left by the British imperialism was an illegal legacy, at the west sector, Aksai Chin was also a traditional area belonged to China16. However, disregarding of China’s repeatedly protests that it was violating “Panchsheel”—the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, India relentlessly put all their military outposts forward on the middle and eastern disputed lines since 195417.
On the other hand, in March 1956, earlier than Chou’s visit to India at the end of the year, China decided to build a highway from Xinjiang to Tibet, which would pass through Aksai China18. In 1961, China started to patrol along the McMahon line and the Chinese soldiers even trampled into some Indian administrated regions. Since then, competition for outpost setting has started between the two countries.
15 Ibid., pp. 93-94.
16 It can be traced back to 1890, after the Ching court dispatched a surveyor to explore the extreme west of the frontier; China has taken it for granted that Aksai Chin was part of their territory. Ibid., pp. 87-88.
17 Ibid., pp. 85-86.
18 Though India marked Aksai Chin as their territory on the official map in 1954, they did not recognize there was a newly built highway at Aksai Chin until 1958. Ibid., pp.
18 Though India marked Aksai Chin as their territory on the official map in 1954, they did not recognize there was a newly built highway at Aksai Chin until 1958. Ibid., pp.