[Assam] Publication of the editorial ‘Chinese claim over Arunachal’; with poorly researched material makes Assam Tribune a crap newspaper. In 1962 India attacked China first. Supportive materials to enlighten readers supplied in this posting.

Bartta Bistar barttabistar at googlemail.com
Wed May 2 06:56:49 PDT 2007

 Western Lies Blackened Beijing's Image

*Gregory Clark* (Vice President, Akita International University)

China's successful moves to improve ties with India have done more than
sabotage Tokyo's hopes for an anti-China alliance with New Delhi. They have
also put an end to the myth that China's alleged aggressions against India
since the 1960s would prevent any rapprochement between the two countries.

The key to this strange belief was the claim that China in 1962 had launched
an unprovoked border attack against India. That claim was a blatant lie --
and one of the brighter and shinier variety. It was a classic example of the
ease with which Western governments and intelligence agencies, together with
their friends in academic, media and research organs, combine to distort
information and blacken China's reputation in Asia.

In 1962 I was China desk officer in Canberra's Department of External
Affairs. For much of the year there had been reports of Indian troops
pushing into Chinese positions along the Sino-Indian border. On Oct. 20 we
had a further report about clashes between Chinese and Indian troops at the
Thag La ridge near the NEFA (North East Frontier Area) border, which was to
lead to a Chinese counterattack into northern India.

New Delhi claimed unprovoked Chinese aggression. But the maps in front of me
showed the Thag La ridge to be north of even the Indian-claimed frontier. So
India must have attacked China first, and in an area where China had already
offered major territory concessions (condemned, incidentally, by Taipei as a
sellout to India).

When my cables to London and Washington confirmed this rather important
fact, I assumed I could suggest to my superiors to ease up on their instant
denunciations of Chinese "aggression" and their promises of immediate arms
to India. Their response was swift: "We fail to see that it is not in the
Western interest to have the Chinese and the Indians at each other's
throats." London and Washington went along with this grubby realpolitik.
Soon the commentators and experts in the Western media and elsewhere were
retailing ominous tales about China's aggressive intentions throughout Asia.

The myth of Chinese aggression against peaceful India was to distort Asian
affairs for more than 40 years. With the help of Western black-information
agencies -- British especially -- it was to provide much of the
justification later for Western intervention in Indochina. Detailed
documentation from Beijing proving the location of the Thag La ridge was

Even the 1972 publication of "India's China War," the irrefutably detailed
book by Neville Maxwell, the London Times New Delhi correspondent at the
time, proving how Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had ordered the
attack across the frontier, largely because of national pride and angst over
the way China had consolidated control over Tibet, did little to change
things. My own book on the subject, "In Fear of China," published four years
earlier, had done even less.

Now, finally, with last month's historic meeting between the Chinese and
Indian prime ministers in New Delhi, the myth is being buried. Both sides
have agreed to settle frontier differences -- something China has long been
able to do with all its other contiguous neighbors, often generously. India
has dropped any challenge to China's sovereignty in Tibet. China has
recognized Indian sovereignty over the once semiautonomous Himalayan region
of Sikkim. A strategic partnership has been promised.

But hopes of Japan-India cooperation to oppose China still smolder in the
hearts of many Japanese hawks. For years the goal was a tripartite Japan-
India-Australia alliance against Beijing in Asia. That began to fall apart
as Canberra belatedly realized its economic future lay with China.

Now the hawks are making much of Japan and India's alleged democracy vs.
China's alleged totalitarianism, hoping to link into U.S. neocon plans to
use the democracy issue to inspire change not just in the Middle East but
eventually to force confusion and breakup in China. Leading hawk Tokyo Gov.
Shintaro Ishihara has now come out openly in the latest issue of *Bungei
Shunju* magazine calling for such a breakup. With the Yasukuni Shrine issue
back in the headlines, others will want to follow.

Yasukuni is an especially fertile source of continued anti-China claims.
Tokyo's insistence that Beijing's protests over Yasukuni amount to
intervention in Japan's domestic affairs rings hollow when one considers how
the shrine and its notorious museum celebrate a Japanese intervention in
China's domestic affairs that left some 20 million people dead. And Article
11 of the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty specifically obliges Japan to
accept Beijing's key point, namely that the 14 wartime leaders enshrined at
Yasukuni were in fact A-class war criminals. You can't get more
international than that.

Talk about Japan's 60 year postwar record of peaceful behavior in Asia and
official development assistance to China is also meaningless when it is
clear that Tokyo wants to be involved in U.S. plans for military action
against North Korea and China. ODA was simply a cheap way for Japan to avoid
having to pay war reparations to China.

The claims that Japan has already apologized to China more than 20 times are
also meaningless, given Tokyo's stubborn refusals to admit to former
atrocities in China and to compensate Chinese and Korean individuals
enslaved during the war years. As both the Chinese and South Korean
leadership have pointed out, actions are more important than words, and so
far Tokyo's actions have not been impressive.

That the Western media have largely gone along with Tokyo's claims over
Yasukuni is further proof of just how easily they accept distorted views of
China. Other examples include the Tiananmen massacre myth (check the now
declassified cables from the U.S. Embassy in Beijing at the time for the
true story), the claim that China's claims over Taiwan are expansionist
(check the terms on which every major power has accepted Beijing's
sovereignty over the island), or Beijing's constant reference to Taiwan as a
"renegade province" (check the English-language Web sites for the main
Chinese newspapers to find the reality). And so on.

It's time this important nation was taken more seriously.

*(This article appeared in the May 30, 2005 issue of The Japan Times)*

* *

*The following part of a letter from an American shortly after the events
gives a startling insight into the 1962 India-China war.*

* *

Dec. 30, 1962

Dear friends,

Then on Dec. 15 appeared the *People's Daily* editorial:


Thus it was clear that a worldwide discussion was on!

* * *

China has been attacked on the question of the Indian border as
"precipitating disaster" and "pushing the Nehru government towards the
West". No, says the editorial, we have always stood for settling borders by
peaceful negotiation but Nehru has always refused. For the past three years
India steadily encroached by armed force into China's territory, while
China's border guards withheld their fire. Finally, taking China's restraint
for weakness, Nehru announced and launched on Oct. 20 a massive general
offensive to which "any sovereign state would have been forced to reply".
China "having repulsed the Indian attacks, at once proposed disengagement
and negotiation, and took the initiative of a Cease-Fire and Withdrawal". As
a result, the border tension has begun to ease, and "de facto" Cease-Fire is

Again the editorial counter-attacks, asking: "Where is the Marxism-Leninism
of those who refuse to see the class nature of the Indian bourgeoisie? They
"suppress with increasing brutality the Indian people", and therefore seek
imperialist aid and "inflame border war as excuse". Their "persistent
anti-China stand comes from their increasingly reactionary domestic and
foreign policies". Those who blame China "mistake cause for effect". Where
is the proletarian internationalism of those who call China "brother" but
"actually take the Indian reactionaries as kinsmen"?

The sharpest comment is perhaps the statement that "the minimum demand of a
Communist is that he makes clear distinction between the enemy and his own
comrades". There are some who are "accommodating" to imperialists and who
treat their comrades as "implacable enemies". This is not the stand for a
Marxist-Leninist to take"....

I refer you to *Peking Review* Dec. 21, for the rest.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.assamnet.org/pipermail/assam-assamnet.org/attachments/20070502/878e4a8d/attachment.htm>

More information about the Assam mailing list