EACS-2016. Book of Abstracts

Section 14 21st Biennial Conference of the European Association for Chinese Studies 173 Tok Sow Keat (The University of Melbourne) Reforming History: Legitimising the CCP and Reform in the Xi Jinping Era Key words: historical memories, China-Japan, nationalism, regime legitimacy History is not neutral, and history contents and its production remain a particularly contested issue in Asia today. Between China and Japan, selection, interpretation and presentation of history events deeply influence the way the two countries interact with each other, and provide the important layer of legitimacy to their respective regimes. In this paper, we examine China’s industry of producing historical contents since the Xi Jinping administration came into office. To Beijing, monopolising historical narrations particularly vis-a-vis Japan has the added benefit of mobilising an increasingly disaffected population and legitimising the regime. To highlight the way in which historical narratives can impact on social stability, internal and foreign policy and identifying moving trends influencing their creation and adaptation, this paper reviews the debate surrounding the instutionalisation of Nanjing Massacre as a pillar of Chinese historical curricu- lum reform. Beginning from late 2013, the issue was debated in the academic and policy circles, then in March 2014, the National People’s Congress gazetted the date 13 December as the national commemora- tive day; this was followed by an elaborated staging of the commemoration in Nanjing later in the year. The paper traces the political undercurrents leading to this development, and grounds it within Xi’s larger reform package. The objective is to uncover the persistent linkage in China between using history as a tool to bolster regime legitimacy and drive policy changes, as well as the broader impact of reformed historical narratives on China-Japan relations. Trentin Giorgio (University of Macerata) Mountaineering and Diplomacy: The Sino-Indian Frontier Issue and the Chinese Everest Expedition of 1960 Key words: China, India, Everest, frontier, diplomacy Since the “Great game” period, the identification of an ideal line separating British India from the northern tribal regions and from the Tibetan plateau overlooking on the Rishikesh plain and the Brahmaputra Valley, was a main task for MacMahon and the men from the Survey of India. After the failure of Simla conference in 1913, the drawing of the “MacMahon line” was doomed to fail, leaving on the table a diplomatic issue later inherited by the Nehru government and the People’s Republic of China. Acting as an elder brother to an almost diplomatically isolated Beijing -already entangled in the Korean War just one year after the foundation of PRC— in the 1950’s New Delhi inaugurated its benevolent “Hindi- Chini bhai-bhai” policy. At the same time, Nehru unilaterally declared that a wide portion of Xinjiang’s Aksai-chin and of Tibetan Tawang area belonged to India, simply on the ground of XIX century’s British Empire self-aspirations. It was the first step on a dangerous road, which would have led at first to diplomatic controversies and finally to the 1962 Sino-Indian war. In this new “Great game” dividing India and China, mountaineering played its role after the success in 1953 of the Hillary expedition on Mount Everest. An Indian flag, among others, was planted on the summit, testifying in a certain way that India might well claim its rights on the frontier region. This episode poured more oil on the flame and led to the Chinese rush to the conquest of Mount Everest, first failing despite the Soviet support in 1959 and then succeeding in 1960, after the break of Sino-soviet relations, without any sup- port. Mao wanted that mountain at all costs, to demonstrate in a different way that the whole Tibet was under the sovereignty of China. In my speech, I will outline the main points of this mountain-diplomacy war, mainly focusing on the connections between the two Chinese expeditions and the Sino-Indian crisis, as well as on China-Ussr relations observed under this lens.