Why China?
Not sure, why does China persist in supporting the Phillipines, or Israel? They sent military aid during a civil war to a kingdom facing a Maoist insurgency. Classic PRC diplomatic L. Even the US and India weren’t supplying them apparently
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4469508.stm
Or there’s a fun Quora answer
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-China-side-with-the-Kingdom-of-Nepal-during-the-Nepalese-Civil-War
Xinhua article 2004
They prefer the status quo. They support the Philippines in fighting against the communists in the current insurgency
Easily the most reactionary aspect about China. Proletarian internationalism is fucking dead.
overextended everyone that tried it and so now it doesnt exist anymore. i think its wise not to repeat the same mistake. the peak for proletarian internationalism was when the red army marched into berlin, the desire for peace beat out the desire to keep pushing when you had everyone on their backs. thats ultimately what put the nail in the coffin there
From memory, these are the “specifics”: China was allegedly selling army supplies to Nepal prior to the declaration of civil war. There were a couple of trucks of munitions already bought and paid for, which were apparently delivered shortly after hostilities began. No more arms deals were done between the two countries after this according to every source. Even the arms deal itself is disputed; I spoke to a couple of Chinese communists about it (admittedly a few years back) and they’d never even heard of it. Could all be bs, there’s really no evidence other than a couple of western press releases
bound by international agreements to not support revolutions. what this means is they trade with anyone who is the current UN sanctioned authority in the region, no exceptions
but i figure once they are fully in stride they wont care what the international capitalists want
The PRC is strict about who the UN recognizes because of Taiwan. If they go around disregarding official UN recognition, it just gives more ammunition for the West to push the Taiwan question in the West’s favor. It’s because of their strict adherence towards UN recognition that almost no African country has a Taiwanese totally-not-an-embassy in their country.
I think people just don’t understand the national liberation struggle dimension of the Chinese project. It’s like how various tendencies assume that calling Deng Xiaoping a revisionist would somehow lead to Chinese people not liking him when all that would do at best is make Chinese people treat him as some Nasser-like figure instead of a principled socialist, which isn’t much of a difference since plenty of people see Nasser as a principled socialist anyways.
Let’s take one example. People think that Hong Kong was leased to the British for 99 years, but that’s strictly not true. It’s actually only the New Territories that was leased for 99 years. Hong Kong island and the Kowloon peninsula were supposed to be permanent British colonies. So why did the British relinquish the entirety of Hong Kong, including Hong Kong island and the Kowloon peninsula, to the PRC in 1997?
It’s all because of Deng Xiaoping. He met with Margaret Thatcher during the 1980s to renegotiate terms for the handover, where he more or less threatened that if the UK doesn’t hand over Hong Kong, including the parts that weren’t covered under the 99 year lease, the PLA would liberate Hong Kong by force. The milk snatcher caved, and that’s how Hong Kong was returned to China. I think Maggie tried to pull some “China is going to be a pariah state” bullshit, but reform and opening-up had already commenced, demonstrating the PRC willingness to integrate itself within the (capitalist) world order. She and the UK had no grounds to call China a rogue state.
With this understanding, why would your average Chinese person give a shit when some loser goes, “Deng Xiaoping sucks because he was a revisionist?”
Don’t look up what China did during the Afghan-soviet war
