Part 1: Himalayas – Part 2: Afghanistan – Part 3: Switzerland – Part 4: Thailand
The final post in the series. As Qing-dynasty China fell at the turn of the 20th century and the Nationalist Party fought a civil war with communist insurgents, the provinces of Tibet, Xin’jiang, and Outer Mongolia declared independence. After the communist victory, Tibet was conquered, the entire cabinet of the Xin’jiang government assassinated and the territory reoccupied, but Mongolia survived as a seperate state with the backing of the Soviet Union.
Stalin helped the Mongolians set up a communist government, and for almost seventy years from 1922 to 1990, Mongolia was a Soviet satellite state just like much of Eastern Europe. The Russian language was taught in school and the Soviets provided the Mongolians with economic aid and military training. Soviet assistance in Mongolia wasn’t just to spread the Red revolution. More importantly, Russia did not want a long and open border with China.
Mongolia isn’t a perfect nationstate. Mongols inhabit a large part of China, and in the west, the nomadic Tuvian Turkic population resides partly in Russia and partly in Mongolia. Small popualtions of Kazakhs and Uyghurs also live in the west. The country is about 85% ethnically Mongolian. With only 2.4 million Mongols in Mongolia, China’s population of 3.4 million Mongols is larger. (You can read more about demographics here, and more about the relevant history here.)
But the border wasn’t designed to unite the Mongolian people—in the end, Russia and China needed a buffer state. Were the two countries to share one long border, territorial disputes would flare up. So Mongolia is the Afghanistan/Nepal/Switzerland of the region, and Russia and China share just a thirty mile border in the far west. (Granted, Manchuria in northeast China is a different story.)
This series could continue, but these five examples best show what I was talking about in the first post: buffer states play a key role in the geopolitical strategy, and can do much to prevent wider conflict, although smaller states often end up as pawns in the games of greater states.
Get the RSS
Comments to this entry
Zhang Fei
September 30, 2005
7:21 am
Mutantfrog
September 30, 2005
8:38 am
Tibet was not actually a province of Qing China, it was really more of suzerainty. Communist China exaggerated the strength of the historical relationship as a pretext to invade.
As far as I know there's never been any proof that the East Turkestan (aka. Xinjiang) President and cabinet were assasainated. Yes, their plane went down in a storm when they were on their way to Beijing to negotiate with
the EmperorChairman Mao. It's definitely very suspicious, but I wouldn't claim that it was an assassination in such a factual tone.It's also worth mentioning that Mongolia had actually been split into Inner and Outer Mongolia under the Manchu rule of Qing China. Yes, they were both territories of the Qing Empire, but after a few centuries of separate administration, they were already a little bit divergent in their own identity even before the post-revolution Chinese-Mongolia and independent Mongolia division.
Gabriel Mihalache
September 30, 2005
9:11 am
Simon World
September 30, 2005
10:49 am
Hong Kong shopping news. Lia Ao's Hong Kong press conference and how the media handled the f-word (Note: the f-word is not freedom). Glutter on a Tiananmen crackdown watch scam. Is Hu a closet liberal or conservative? (via CDT) Cuzon continues his ex...
dave
September 30, 2005
12:06 pm
Jing
September 30, 2005
1:08 pm
Chief Wiggum
September 30, 2005
3:43 pm
Kaplan in _Balkan Ghosts_ notes that countries frequently claim all the territory that they once controlled at the height of their imperial expansion, even though the territories in questions may have since changed hands many times over the centuries. At the Treaty of Versailles after WWI, Italy claimed chunks of the Balkans, and even part of Turkey, based on those regions being a former part of the Roman Empire.
Alfred Russel Wallace
September 30, 2005
3:45 pm
Caerdroia
September 30, 2005
3:58 pm
Curzon at coming anarchy is doing an interesting series on buffer states, so far including the China-India border, Afghanistan and Switzerland. Well worth reading. UPDATE: Two more are up, completing the series: Thailand and Mongolia. Hmmm...shouldn't...
sun bin
September 30, 2005
5:11 pm
just a minor point to add. since kazakhstan was part of the Soviet Union until 1990s, the western border was much longer than a few kms
Jing
September 30, 2005
5:28 pm
There seems to be some more confusion over the issues. Aside from the dispute of an island (which have since been transfered) within the Ussuri river, there are no official PRC claims to any lost territory, let alone claims published in maps. Perhaps you are confusing the claims of the PRC with that of the ROC on Taiwan. RoC maps include China, Mongolia, and other territories lost during the august years of the Qing dynasty.
Jeff Medcalf
September 30, 2005
5:52 pm
If indeed it is the case the buffer state collapse generally leads to war, does that imply a war in the Korean peninsula if N. Korea (essentially a buffer state set up and largely maintained by the Chinese) collapses?
Curzon
September 30, 2005
6:11 pm
MF: If you believe that wasn't an ipso facto assasination... well.
sun bin
September 30, 2005
8:59 pm
I guess their plan now is Operation Mexican in SW USA. :) but the weather condition and economic opportunity makes the analogy quite the opposite.
Mutantfrog
September 30, 2005
9:00 pm
Chief Wiggum
October 1, 2005
12:51 am
If you do a search on Google, you will come up with quite a lot of information on Chinese territorial claims on Russian lands.
Here are a few truncated references:
From the December 2003 issue of World Press Review (VOL. 50, No. 12)
http://www.worldpress.org/print_article.cfm?article_id=1766&dont=yes
_A Chinese 'Invasion'_
Vladimir Radyuhin, The Hindu (centrist), Chennai, India, Sept. 23, 2003
_The history of Chinese territorial claims to Russia feeds Russian fears of a demographic invasion. Former Chinese leaders Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping are both on record as saying that Russians had taken too much territory and that Vladivostok and Khabarovsk by right should be Chinese. Chinese tribes had settled in the Far East long before the Russians came there. However, the region was never part of the Chinese empire, and when Russia established its control over the Far East in the mid-19th century, it signed a treaty with the Chinese emperor asserting Russian sovereignty over the region. Chinese historians continue to denounce the current borders as unfair and imposed on China by Russia in the 19th century, and *Chinese children are still being taught in school that Russia took away the Far East from China by force.*_
If Chinese children are being taught in school that Russia took the Far East away from China by force, it not much of a stretch to expect that the disputed territory may be shown on maps as Chinese.
According to the below story, Russia and China signed a treaty in October, 2004, to resolve all land disputes on their border. The Chinese got the islands they wanted, and *dropped their claim on 1.5 million square kilometers of Russian Territory:*
_December 18 / 19, 2004_
_The New China / Russia Alliance_
Laughing Dragon, Dancing Bear
By RAY McGOVERN
Former CIA Analyst
http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern12182004.html
_Soviet President Vladimir Putin, while visiting Beijing in October, said bilateral relations had reached "unparalleled heights." During his visit, Putin signed an agreement that settled the last of the disputes along the 7,500-kilometer border between the two countries._
_Those disputes had led to armed clashes in the '60s and '70s, particularly in areas where the frontier is defined by the main channel of border rivers, which meander. Islands ended up being claimed by both sides. The overall political backdrop, though, was China's claim to 1.5 million square kilometers taken from China under what it called "unequal treaties" dating back to the Treaty of Nerchinsk in 1689. These irredentist claims, a staple of Chinese anti-Soviet rhetoric, have been muted._
I won't include any citations, but there is an interesting article on the Frontpage Magazine web site entitled _China's Manifest Destiny_ by Frederick W. Stakelbeck dated June 7, 2005:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18305
sun bin
October 1, 2005
5:16 am
what you said is more or less true, except that the dispute was officially settled a couple years ago.
and totally settled as of this year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/analysis/29263.stm
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/xw/t198291.htm
Kushibo
October 1, 2005
7:11 am
No pun intended?
sun bin
October 1, 2005
7:33 pm
here is a map for the 1.5M km areas ceded to Russia by Qing, which is recognized by PRC in recent settlement.
Curzon
October 1, 2005
9:33 pm
Thanks all for the maps -- very interesting stuff.
sun bin
October 1, 2005
10:41 pm
Zhang Fei
October 2, 2005
7:21 am
Chinese territorial concessions are recognized until it is militarily convenient for China to derecognize them. Hong Kong was ceded to Britain in perpetuity. But it is not the Union Jack that flies over Hong Kong government offices today.
sun bin: what about some discussion on "Ëœfictitious states' (this is not a good name) such as panama, liberia, (yugoslavia which is not longer here), (sabah and sarawak into malaysia JUST BECAUSE they are convenient for the british), which were created to achieve some reason unrelated to its people or history?
Sabah and Sarawak were incorporated into Malaysia because their leaders wished not to become part of the empire bequeathed upon the Javanese by the Dutch (also known as Indonesia), but were themselves too weak to prevent the Indonesians from conquering them. Whatever Chinese textbooks* may say about the matter, Sabah and Sarawak voluntarily joined the Malayan Federation.
As to artificial states, most of the states in Africa and Asia are artificial states. Cambodia and Laos were part of the Thai empire. India was a mess of principalities and kingdoms. Malaysia and Singapore were a motley collection of Thai and Javanese vassal states. The reason many of these states exist in their present form is because they were colonial administrative units, and because the various European empires allowed free migration within these units. If each tribe or ethnic group had been given its own state, the immediate result after independence would have been bloody international wars to regain the lands claimed by their pre-colonial ancestors.
* What Chinese textbooks do not say, but a (now-imprisoned) Chinese academic discovered, was that China financed an ethnic Chinese-based communist movement in Malaysia out of the billions of dollars of cash it spent until the late '70's fomenting revolt in Southeast Asia (excluding Indochina). Some think this was communist orthodoxy in action. More likely, it is a straight line from the traditions of Chinese empire, which traditionally required of its neighbors that they seek approval from the Chinese throne before appointing a new ruler, or face the threat of a punitive Chinese military expedition.
Mutantfrog
October 2, 2005
7:28 am
Hong Kong Island was ceded in perpetuity, but Kowloon and the remainder of greater Hong Kong (including Lantou, where they built the international airport) was only granted to Britain in a 99 year lease. Imagine what would have happened if Britain returned the larger part of Hong Kong territory when the lease expired, but tried to hold onto HK Island itself. Clearly that was utterly impractical. Even if they had technically held on, the Island would have lost virtually all of its transport connections with both the Chinese mainland and the outside world and become virtually worthless as an independent territory.
sun bin
October 2, 2005
4:29 pm
yes, i think you explain the reason for creating malaysia well.
although i think it is more 'the british believe' than 'the people want', even though the british are correct.
in fact singapore wanted to join malaysia but was repelled.
the case for sabah and sarawak works well at the beginning, but it is quite a fictitious union in all respects, geographically, ethnically, etc. and there is now discontent (and unfariness) that the pennisula is exploiting these 2 exclaves or their rich resources (oil included).
but my point is not to question such national border, but rather to use them to illustrate how ridiculous national border could be, why there are so much disputes and conflicts today.
Curzon
October 2, 2005
5:13 pm
But as I said, this series could continue to cover half the globe.
sunbin
October 2, 2005
8:06 pm
from wiki
"After a national referendum in 1962, Singapore was admitted into the Federation of Malaysia along with Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak as a state with autonomous powers in September 1963. After heated ideological conflict developed between the state government formed by PAP and the Federal government in Kuala Lumpur, Singapore was expelled from the federation on August 7, 1965."
the reason is racial, but i guess also because Lee Kuanyew is too strong a competitor who could get vote from other races (malay, tamil).
singapre has
Zhang Fei
October 2, 2005
8:29 pm
How would it have lost its transport connections to the Chinese mainland and the world? Would the bridges between Hong Kong and Kowloon have been blown up and the airport closed? Would the Harbor be shut down? Hong Kong's border would simply have reverted to being Hong Kong island. The reason Hong Kong island does not today fly the Union Jack is because Deng Xiaoping insisted on its "return" to China, despite its having been ceded in perpetuity. Or else. Which is pretty indicative of the Chinese attitude towards territorial issues - agreements are written to be torn up when China sees fit.
Mutantfrog
October 2, 2005
8:36 pm
I think that's exactly would have happened. If Britain had insisted on holding onto HK Island, China would have cut all links with their territory and starved the island's economy to death.
Anyway, are you saying that Britain should have kept their colony in perpetuity? Don't forget that we're talking about land that was taken in a treaty signed at gunpoint. I see nothing wrong with China having tough negotiation tactics to get their stolen territory back.
What concerns me is their attempts to break the promises they made to allow democracy and free speech to flourish in Hong Kong, and I have very little faith in their intention to allow it in the future.
Zhang Fei
October 2, 2005
8:51 pm
According to Wikipedia, Kowloon was part of the original treaty - it was the New Territories that weren't. Much of the most densely-populated parts of Kowloon actually lie within the boundaries of the original treaty. Mongkok and Yau Ma Tei are part of the original treaty. Prince Edward MTR Station is the northernmost subway stop in Mongkok before Boundary Road, which marks the border with the New Territories.
sunbin
October 2, 2005
11:12 pm
but that part of kowloon pennisular is a lot smaller than HK island itself.
i think the point is that it is impractical for UK to keep that tiny piece of land, and given that they have given up most of the colonial possessions, there is good reason for PRC to take it back
sure, you can air-lift supplies. but there is very limited amount of freshwater on a few small reservoirs on HK Island.
the case of HK is totally different from that of outer manchuria. so is the negotiation process around 1984.
Mongol
October 25, 2005
1:52 am
sun bin
October 25, 2005
3:28 am
think about the manchu/han relationship as this (let's make the distinction between the terminology han and 'chinese', since manchu are part of chinese now, at least most manchurian descendants think so).
in europe, when a king marries a queen, the 2 kingdoms become one. this is similar to the manchu/han situation, except it is conquer/assimilation instead of marriage/assimilation.
anyway, i don't think any of these is relevant in modern society. the people should decide who they belong to.
monocrat
December 11, 2005
2:39 pm
If a state is so animated or power-hungry that it will seek war with a large, near-neighboring power, what will a buffer do to stop it? You noted in your Switzerland post that Hitler respected Helvetian independence. But I imagine it was respect of convenience: they banked for him, and what strategic value would invasion have provided him? Was it Dutch or Belgian neutrality he easily quashed in order to by-pass the Maginot line? Had he succeded, I doubt the Swiss could long have remained independent.
Perhaps long ago the extra territory needed to be crossed by an invading army was of use to a defending power, but I doubt that it would necessarily have provided any net benefit relative to an annexed hinterland. A well regulated border and good counter-intelligence regime should suffice nowadays, and would be needed in any case on the border facing the buffer.
That said, I think there is some value to be had from buffer states: if the buffer is armed and in good health (relevant to Switzerland and Thailand, I believe), then the buffered states essentially receive protection from each other for free. Other the otherside, maybe the mountain states of the Himalayas and Hindu Kush simply weren't worth the effort of colonizing?
baruunhun
February 12, 2006
6:27 am