CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:60
Arguments:40
Total Votes:68
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
  (34)

Debate Creator

Seth_Tan(133) pic



[S4-06] Who has the right of claim over the disputed territory of Aksai Chin?

In this persepectives debate, contribute your comments on the debate motion, based on the position that has been assigned to you.

Each posting should only comprise of 1 main point, with relevant supporting examples/evidences and explanation.

The group with the most number of points awarded for good quality posting will get an early recess break in the next lesson.

Add New Argument
5 points

India is right. India had claimed Aksai Chin even before China had control of XinJiang or Tibet, Aksai Chin was never the border of China when India had laid claims on it thus Aksai Chin should belong to India.

JiaEn(9) Disputed
2 points

Even though the land is claimed, by the laws of war, the land can be occupied by another country if the country is able to establish themselves with their military forces.

After the claim, China was able to establish and occupy Tibet, by this law, and Aksai Chin was part of the region that China was able to occupy

1 point

Yeah, it was a valid historical claim by India. China should respect that.

jeremeho(12) Disputed
1 point

A British missionary, George Patterson, said that the evidence that India used to assert their authority over Aksai Chin was of poor quality, and included some "dubious" sources. Doesn't this mean that India's claim is not credible?

4 points

China initially tried to avoid military confrontation, out of respect to India's ancient culture and sympathy that it had suffered a similar painful past of oppression by colonial powers. However, India's persistent provocation eventually breached China's bottom-line, and the People's Liberation Army (PLA) was forced to join the battle in self-defense

3 points

The McMahon line had been drawn out in the late 1800s but the Chinese had to go and fight the Indian forces for what they believed to belong to them.

SouthTuna(3) Disputed
2 points

China had a right to to do so as it was not legally agreed to by the Tibetans- Tibet as a local government had no rights to treaty powers and according to the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906 and the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1907, Britain themselves (India was colonized by British at the time) agreed to not let Tibet make any negotiations and that they would have to go through China as an intermediary.

3 points

And they only started doing something about the border 50 years after the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906.

1 point

Hence I believe that the Chinese has the right to claim since it was proactive in disputing what they believe is a post-World War white supremacist policy.

Adilsocool(4) Disputed
2 points

They could have resolved this issue in a non-violent manner but they insisted on attacking the Indian forces first, decades after the McMahon line was drawn out.

2 points

China has the right to claim Aksai Chin as the territory falls within the Tibetan region, which is a Chinese political territory.

2 points

War is a negotiating approach, but not a goal. Similarly, China's decision to fight back against India in the 1962 border war was to strike a peace with its neighbor. Therefore, while fighting with the Indian troops, China constantly urged the Indian government to end the conflicts and solve the border issue on the negotiating table.

Seth_Tan(133) Clarified
1 point

So your point is? What were you trying to prove here? That China had initiated the claim over the territory by resorting to violence, and hence legitimising its claim over the territory... as in... 'first move' principle?

2 points

India. Its already stated in maps that aksai chin was part of their territory

yichieh(2) Disputed
1 point

Who drew the maps? British? India? Or China? Is it a map that both party agreed upon?

idgrr Clarified
2 points

They claimed it before china and placed it under their territory in the maps

2 points

China has the right of claim over Aksai Chin as it was stated in maps of 1958 that it was China territory. By 1951, China also extended numerous posts in Aksai Chin, the India Government did not establish itself there. It was also announced by the People's Republic of China that they would be occupying Tibet, which is where Aksai Chin is located.

2 points

India has the right of claim over the Aksai Chin area as the Chinese Officials had no qualms over Nehru's claims and did not make any opposing stand to his open declarations of control over Aksai Chin and during 1956 Chinese Premier, Zhou EnLai, stated that he had no claims over Indian Controlled Territory.

But it was only afterwards that he claimed that Aksai Chin was under Chinese territory and that the boundary was undermarcated and that the Indian Government could not unilaterally define the Border.

1 point

China has the right to claim over the disputed territory of Aksai Chin. It is not like India can have much use of Aksai Chin as they will have to pass through mountain range to reach the land while China can have easy access to it.

Unused land is wasted land. Since it will be useful for China to have the land for their use, and not just a barren land, China have the right to claim Aksai Chin.

Madridcelona(1) Disputed
2 points

Disagreed. Your point would justify stealing of other people's ownership just because it is unused. Even if China have more uses for Aksai Chin, the fact that India claimed ownership first doesn't change. So instead of claiming ownership, they should have discussed with the indian government for ownership, like a normal transaction between two parties.

Seth_Tan(133) Disputed
1 point

Why the assumption that China will make good use of the land? Wouldn't India be able to do so too?

claireki(8) Disputed
1 point

Even if it is barren land and not of much use to the Indians, the Chinese should have still negotiated with them as the Indians might haven had a plan for Aksai Chin in the future and make good use of it. Just claiming Aksai Chin for itself without negotiating with India is a bad move by China.

1 point

The dispute between China and India had India over-reacting when China built a road through Aksai Chin which was seen by the Indians as China claiming Aksai Chin for themselves when in fact, the Chinese built said road so that the Chinese could easily travel through the area and that India could have also done the same thing if they had not made the assumption that the building of the road was China claiming Aksai Chin for themselves.

claireki(8) Disputed
2 points

After building the roads in Aksai Chin, they created border posts, indicating that they were claiming Aksai Chin for themselves. India has the right to react that way.

1 point

You can only build roads on your own land. If India wanted a road in their territory they would have built it themselves.

Seth_Tan(133) Clarified
1 point

So your point is? Over-reaction by a party does not necessarily mean that that party was right, even though it might choose to think that it was right in the issue by contesting against what it saw as injustice.

In the case of China, it makes sense for them to build the road for above-said reasons, as they need not seek any approval from any other country, since the territory of Aksai Chin belongs to them anyway.

SouthTuna(3) Disputed
1 point

Yes, China built said road for themselves for easy travel which effectively means that China was claiming the disputed land for themselves already, even before the matter was settled.

1 point

The right of claim over the disputed territory of Aksai Chin was neither India or China. However, India should not have reacted harshly and critically towards China building a highway across Aksai Chin (which was for convenience of travelling to and fro Tibet and Sinkang). This resulted in a war which was inconvenient for both sides (who would want to fight in a war?). Furthermore, India could have also shared the land if both parties were willing to cooperate.

Seth_Tan(133) Clarified
1 point

Then to whom does Aksai Chin belong to? UN? No men's land?

mateenjamri(10) Disputed
1 point

Since nobody was living there (the only structure was an old fort), I believe it belonged to no one. Hence, the land was unused and deserted. China only used it for convenience (and by my standards, putting a road, to help save travelling people's time, isn't 'claiming' the land). Furthermore, India could also have used it (maybe also to build roads for convenience?)

1 point

China is right. India had claimed Aksai Chin using the Johnson Line, without China's consent in the matter as they were preoccupied in the Dungan Revolt and had not officially guarded and named Xinjiang yet, and that the Xinjiang-Tibet region that Aksai Chin falls under was already premarked as China's since the Sikh invasion where China drove the Sikhs out of that area. After when the British overtook the Sikh land, China and Britain agreed to recognise the border

1 point

During June–July 1962, Indian military planners began advocating "probing actions" against the Chinese, and accordingly, moved mountain troops forward to cut off Chinese supply lines. India's motives were even worse:

1.Test Chinese resolve and intentions regarding India.

2.Test whether India would enjoy Soviet backing in the event of a Sino-Indian war.

3.Create sympathy for India within the U.S., with whom relations had deteriorated after the Indian annexation of Goa.

This tells us that India was aggressive towards China and caused tensions between the two countries.

Seth_Tan(133) Clarified
1 point

So.....? Aggressive India means that it will lose it's right of claim?

1 point

There was an abandoned fort had apparently been built a few years earlier by the Kashmiris, which meant the land would belong to India.

1 point

China initially tried to avoid military confrontation, out of respect to India's ancient culture and sympathy that it had suffered a similar painful past of oppression by colonial powers. However, India's persistent provocation eventually breached China's bottom-line, and the People's Liberation Army joined the battle in self-defense.