Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Border face-off: China and India each deploy 3,000 troops

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hostile border dispute with India could damage China’s global trade plan, experts war

    Hostile border dispute with India could damage China’s global trade plan, experts warn - scmp

    The protracted border row between China and India has not only raised tensions between the two Asian giants but could also threaten Beijing’s ambitious trade and infrastructure outreach plan, the “Belt and Road Initiative”, experts have warned.

    Chinese and Indian troops have been locked in an eyeball-to-eyeball stand-off for over 40 days in a desolate region of the Himalayas that is also claimed by India’s ally Bhutan. Both sides blame each other for escalating the dispute by deploying troops in the area.

    Macau-based military expert Antony Wong Dong warned that Beijing’s hardball politics are pushing New Delhi further away and could end up making it an enemy.

    “China is playing psychological warfare ... but it should realise that even if it defeated India in a war on land, it would be impossible for the PLA navy to break India’s maritime containment,” he said, pointing to the importance of the Indian Ocean as a commercial lifeline.

    China is heavily reliant on imported fuel and, according to figures published by state media, more than 80 per cent of its oil imports travel via the Indian Ocean or Strait of Malacca.

    “Unlike Southeast Asian countries, India has never succumbed to China’s ‘carrot and stick’ strategies,” Wong said. “India is strategically located at the heart of China’s energy lifeline and the ‘Belt and Road Initiative’, and offending India will only push it into the rival camp, which [Beijing believes] is scheming to contain China by blocking the Malacca Strait and the Indian Ocean.”

    Sun Shihai, an adviser to the Chinese Association for South Asian Studies, echoed Wong’s views. He said he was concerned that the worst military stand-off in more than three decades would fuel anti-Chinese sentiment in India, as mistrust and hostility between the two countries run deep.

    If not properly handled, the border row could have a long-term impact on China’s efforts to expand its diplomatic and economic influence beyond the Asia-Pacific region with its “Belt and Road Initiative”, he said.

    “India is one of the most important strategic partners for China’s ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ because of its geographic location,” Sun said.

    “Beijing has been trying to lure India to join ‘Belt and Road’ projects because both countries stand to benefit from them strategically and economically.

    [But] The latest tensions have soured bilateral ties and the growing mistrust will only make New Delhi more reluctant to make a decision,” he said.
    The latest border dispute on the remote Doklam Plateau, also known as the Donglang region in Chinese, came as the world’s two most populous nations continued to jostle for dominance in the region.

    In July, India, the United States and Japan completed their 10-day Malabar 2017 naval exercise in the Bay of Bengal, while around the same time the US approved the US$365-million sale of military transport aircraft to India and a US$2-billion deal for surveillance drones. All three should be “warnings” to China, Wong said.

    According to the Business Insider website, India’s interest in enhancing its naval capabilities, especially its fleet of submarines, is thought to have been prompted by China’s military modernisation and its increased activity in the Indian Ocean and the narrow Malacca Strait, which connects it to the waters of East Asia.

    India’s growing focus on submarine warfare was underscored after it was included as part of the joint naval drills in Malabar, the website said.
    After several weeks of stand-off in Doklam, China’s defence ministry on Monday issued its strongest warning yet to India regarding the border dispute, saying it would protect its sovereignty “at all costs”.

    Dr Rajeev Ranjan Chaturvedy, a research associate at the Institute of South Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore, said Beijing’s assertiveness had deepened the political trust deficit between China and its Asian neighbours.

    “There are other inherent problems in China’s ‘Belt and Road Initiative’, which have resulted, for example, in the abandonment or postponement of several of China’s high-speed rail projects,” Chaturvedy said.

    “China’s ‘my way or the highway’ approach has complicated problems further,” he said.

    India refused to join China’s ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ and affiliated infrastructure projects due to sovereignty concerns over the US$50 billion “China-Pakistan Economic Corridor”, which runs through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, both of which New Delhi considers Indian territories.

    In India, China is widely blamed for the stand-off in Doklam after it attempted to build a motorway in the area. Beijing, meanwhile, has insisted that the road construction project was on its side of the border and accused Indian troops of crossing into its territory.

    “China’s behaviour is only likely to make India even less willing to reconsider its objection to the ‘Belt and Road Initiative’, said Rajeswari Rajagopalan, a senior fellow at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi. “Even the few voices in India that have suggested India should reconsider its position are unlikely to support it [China].”

    Regardless of exactly who did what in Doklam, experts on both sides of the argument agree that the odds of the two countries going to war are slim.

    Alka Acharya, a professor of Chinese studies at the Centre for East Asian Studies in New Delhi, said that although the Indian public wasn’t well informed and could be influenced by hawkish talk online, “nobody has come out in favour of war – they support a resolution by diplomatic means”.

    Beijing-based Zhou Chenming added that China was well aware of the futility of an all-out war for a desolate border area that is “frozen for up to eight months of the year”.

    “Besides the [human] casualties, the logistical cost of a border conflict between China and India would be inestimable,” he said.

    Meanwhile, the dispute between China and India has had the knock-on effect of slowing down discussions at the ongoing Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership in the southern Indian city of Hyderabad.

    China has zealously promoted the trade pact in the hope it could replace the United States-led Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free-trade agreement that was abandoned by US President Donald Trump in January.

    However, the talks, which got under way on July 18 have been hampered by India’s reluctance to compromise on its demands for greater market access for its skilled workers.

    The partnership was initiated by members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which also invited China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and India.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

    Comment


    • IS CHINA TURNING UP HEAT ON INDIA THROUGH PAKISTAN FLANK AMID DOKLAM STANDOFF? - scmp
      Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
        Breaking: Modi Govt. Hits China Exactly Where it is Required..Major Setback has left China Fuming

        34 lakh diamond heist at Mumbai expo solved, 2 Chinese held at airport, really? You guys had to do this during the border stand-off. Indian police is known for .... custodial generosity.
        Are you suggesting official involvement?
        Trust me?
        I'm an economist!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DOR View Post
          Are you suggesting official involvement?
          For the diamond theft case? No. But since relations between the 2 countries are not normal, the 2 Chinese will remember democratic police traditions for a long time. These idiots are petty thieves who got caught at the wrong time.
          Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
            “India and China have a fairly rich menu of boundary management protocols which effectively translate into engagements between very lightly armed personnel from either side when a standoff breaks out,” he said.

            “That is different from the situation in the South and East China Sea where engagement protocols are still very rudimentary and could see sharp escalatory spirals.”
            Quick reply to this message
            That really is the take away. Question is can these boundary management protocols be established in the South & East China sea or is their sole reason to exist, the party China tango's with is strong enough to resist?

            On land is easier than in the sea, people can be mobilised, at sea you need vessels and in strength. Or subs. Higher upfront costs then again the stakes are a great deal higher too.
            Last edited by Double Edge; 02 Aug 17,, 12:28.

            Comment


            • This is the latest, Pull back troops from Doklam with 'no strings attached': China to India
              Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                Nepal, well, we had to get rid of the King. Then China took notice, and played the maoist card. China can't win in Nepal, we have the upperhand.
                Could you explain the underlined part. Way i understood it was he became a tyrant and the people wanted him out. The Maoists sped up the process.

                How was India involved

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                  Could you explain the underlined part. Way i understood it was he became a tyrant and the people wanted him out. The Maoists sped up the process.

                  How was India involved
                  I didn't say India was involved. Edit functionality is gone now. ;-)

                  #1. Dipendra was in love with Devyani, whom his parents (King & Queen) despised.

                  #2. They despised because they didn't want to share power with a family in India.

                  #3. Meanwhile, China was trying to gain leverage in Nepal through Prachanda. Gyanendra was the ruling King's brother.

                  #4. Gyanendra was not present at the shooting, but his wife, son and daughter were present. His son and wife escaped with injuries.

                  Now, connect the dots. Prachanda said it was either R&AW or CIA. What does the CIA gain?

                  Dipendra was drunk and probably dosed on opium too when the incident occurred. They say he killed for love. Who would kill for love and not want to be with his love? How did he shoot himself in the back 6 damn times? Why did he shoot himself in his left hand?

                  But the thing is, this is not open source as no one can prove anything now. I heard it from a friend (Nepalese) who was my school mate many years back over a drinking session. Just like how R&AW created the Bodo militants to contain the presence of ULFA all over Assam.

                  Didn't yield the desired results in the longterm though.
                  Last edited by Oracle; 02 Aug 17,, 16:38.
                  Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                  Comment


                  • Peace in border areas important prerequisite for smooth bilateral relations with China: Govt

                    No reduction in troops at Doklam: India


                    Meanwhile, China won't stop supporting terror sponsoring countries or terrorists themselves, No decision yet on UN ban on Masood Azhar: China
                    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                      I didn't say India was involved. Edit functionality is gone now. ;-)

                      #1. Dipendra was in love with Devyani, whom his parents (King & Queen) despised.

                      #2. They despised because they didn't want to share power with a family in India.

                      #3. Meanwhile, China was trying to gain leverage in Nepal through Prachanda. Gyanendra was the ruling King's brother.

                      #4. Gyanendra was not present at the shooting, but his wife, son and daughter were present. His son and wife escaped with injuries.

                      Now, connect the dots. Prachanda said it was either R&AW or CIA. What does the CIA gain?
                      A coup plot so Gyanendra takes over ?

                      Which external party would that benefit. One royal seems as bad as the other. Given Nepal wants to play China off India, there isn't an incentive for either external party to engineer anything here. One day china is in favour and it swaps over another day. Ending up with both parties messing with you. Bhutan has been wise here.

                      But the thing is, this is not open source as no one can prove anything now. I heard it from a friend (Nepalese) who was my school mate many years back over a drinking session. Just like how R&AW created the Bodo militants to contain the presence of ULFA all over Assam.

                      Didn't yield the desired results in the longterm though.
                      Its not clear whether your friend is suggesting a raw hit here or not.
                      Last edited by Double Edge; 02 Aug 17,, 16:42.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                        Meanwhile, China won't stop supporting terror sponsoring countries or terrorists themselves, No decision yet on UN ban on Masood Azhar: China
                        Ah, what if reverse their stance. Creates an opening. Mind you it could happen either this round or after six months. The Paks will just grin and bear it as Chinese funds come in. The yes vote means the Paks will be forced to deal with masood. Top Leader taken out (by the paks themselves, important bit, now they face the blow back), an important objective won.


                        Originally posted by toi comment
                        CHINA SHOULD ADOPT MASOOD AND MAKE HIM THE GOVERNOR OF XINXIANG.
                        haha
                        Last edited by Double Edge; 02 Aug 17,, 16:52.

                        Comment


                        • Load of baloney, too much is made of the importance of India joining the belt and road projects.

                          http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20..._136494690.htm

                          BEIJING, Aug. 2 (Xinhua) -- China on Wednesday laid out its position on India's incursion into Chinese territory in the Himalayas.
                          China's Position Concerning Indian Border Troops Crossing of the China-India Boundary in the Sikkim Sector was published Wednesday to allow the international community to become better acquainted with the facts of the issue, and to fully explain China's stance on the matter, according to a press statement by the Foreign Ministry's Geng Shuang.
                          India's action "severely violates" China's territorial integrity and poses "grave challenges" to regional peace and stability, said Geng.
                          Over 270 Indian troops crossed the Sikkim sector of the China-India border and obstructed Chinese road works in the Dong Lang area (Doklam) on June 18. As of end of July, over 40 members of the Indian military and one piece of heavy earth-moving equipment remained in Chinese territory.
                          Since the incident, the Chinese side has made serious representations to the Indian side, demanding an immediate withdrawal of Indian troops.
                          The China-India boundary in the Sikkim sector is delimited by the 1890 Convention between Great Britain and China Relating to Sikkim and Tibet, and is recognized by both Chinese and Indian governments.
                          According to the 1890 convention, the area in question is indisputably Chinese territory. Once established, the boundary came under the protection of international law. The unauthorized crossing of such a delimited boundary is a "very serious incident," the document said.
                          India's accusation of the "serious security implications" of road building and its attempt to make territorial claims on Bhutan's behalf have no "factual or legal grounds."
                          China's road building is being conducted entirely within Chinese territory and India has been kept fully informed of all proceedings throughout, a reflection of China's goodwill in the matter.
                          The intrusion is nothing more than an attempt to "change the status quo" of the boundary, according to the document.
                          Mount Ji Mu Ma Zhen is the eastern starting point of the boundary in question and also the junction of the boundaries between China, India and Bhutan. The Indian incursion occurred more than 2,000 meters from Mount Ji Mu Ma Zhen and has nothing to do with the the boundary junction.
                          As good neighbors, China and Bhutan have had several rounds of boundary talks, and as a third party, India has no right to interfere in or impede those talks, still less the right to make territorial claims on Bhutan's behalf.
                          China will defend its territorial sovereignty, safeguard the principles of international law and the basic norms of international relations, Geng said.
                          "Justice will prevail," the spokesperson said.

                          Comment


                          • Full text of facts and China's position concerning Indian border troops' crossing of China-India boundary | Xinhua | Aug 02 2017

                            They are using 1890 treaty

                            Doklam, Gipmochi, Gyemochen: It’s Hard Making Cartographic Sense of a Geopolitical Quagmire | The Wire | Jul 20 2017

                            what emerges is the difficulty of relying on an 1890 convention, based on possibly flawed surveys, that may have taken place in the early part of the 20th century in a mountainous and inhospitable region, for modern day boundaries. India and China have clearly indicated their intention of following the watershed principle for following their border. But to do it by relying on maps alone would be an imperfect process. It has to be done on the ground.
                            On June 29, Bhutan had put out its press release which was quite terse, noting that on June 16th, “the Chinese Army started constructing a motorable road from Dokola in the Doklam area towards the Bhutan Army camp at Zompelri. Boundary talks are ongoing between Bhutan and China and we have written agreements of 1988 and 1998 stating that the two sides agree to maintain… status quo on the boundary as before March 1959.”

                            Beyond the issue of maps and their interpretations, there is also the clear violation by the Chinese of their 1998 agreement with Bhutan not to disturb the status quo as of 1959. The Chinese have, in any case, violated this agreement to build a motorable track to a point below Doka La which is some 2 kms north of Gymochen
                            Last edited by Double Edge; 03 Aug 17,, 02:07.

                            Comment


                            • A background of China - Bhutan talks and what they want. Once you understand that its more clear what Chinese intent is with this affair

                              China-South Asia Strategic Engagements Bhutan-China Relations | ISAS (NUS) | 23 Aug 2012

                              The attempts by China to open direct contact with Bhutan since the late 1950s were unsuccessful. The main reason behind this was China’s policy towards Tibet – the spiritual fatherland of Bhutan. The antagonistic relations between India and China also played a role in the distance between Bhutan and China. The improvement in the Sino-Indian relations in the late 1970s, under the government in New Delhi led by Janata Party, paved the way for a positive shift in the relations between Bhutan and China. The near-normalisation of Sino-Indian relations created the condition for direct engagement between Bhutan and China. For China, development of relations with Bhutan is not an end in itself. “China is considering its relation with Bhutan as part of its ‘Western development strategy’, that could allow Tibet to regain a central position in the Himalayan region.”

                              As an incident, paradoxically, the border incursion by China into Bhutanese territory in 1979 led to the events which culminated in the direct contact between the two countries. When Bhutan raised the issue through India in accordance with the India-Bhutan Treaty of 1949, China offered to resolve the problem bilaterally. The preliminary discussions between Bhutan and China regarding the modalities of direct engagement began in 1981 and the formal direct negations on resolving the boundary dispute started in 1984.

                              The border between Bhutan and Tibet was not demarcated properly. This 470 km un-demarcated border became a contentious issue after the Chinese conquest of Tibet. The un-demarcated nature of the border led to incursions by China many a time. Severe Chinese incursions of Bhutanese territory happened in 1967, 1979, 1983. It is important to note that China resorted to encroachment of Bhutanese territory even after the stage was set for direct engagement between both the countries. These border incursions by China were intended to put pressure on Bhutan and to prove the point that India would not be of any help in her border dispute with China.

                              As mentioned earlier, bilateral negotiations between Bhutan and China to resolve the border dispute officially began in 1984. So far [as at the time this paper was written], 19 rounds of discussions have happened and the last one was held at Thimphu during 11-13 January 2010. At the beginning of the border talks itself, the disputed areas were identified as north-western section (Doklam, Sichulung, Dramana and Shakhatoe in Samste, Haa and Paro districts) and central section (Pasamlung and Jakarlung valley in Wagduerphodrang district). In the total of 764 sq km of disputed territory, the north-western and central sections cover 269 sq km and 495sq km respectively.

                              From the very beginning, it was clear that the Chinese aim was not resolving the border dispute but to establish diplomatic relations with Bhutan, the only neighbour of China with which there is no diplomatic relations. In the second round of talks held in 1985 China “talked of expanding contact, saying that it has diplomatic relations with all SAARC states, but not with Bhutan.” However, Bhutan did not give any positive signal towards this Chinese move. The bilateral discussions between China and Bhutan continued without much headway till 1996. In the 10th round of the border talks held in 1996, China put forth a proposal involving the exchange of disputed areas between both the countries. According to this proposal, China offered the central section to Bhutan and in return wanted the north-western section. No conclusive decision was taken on this proposal.

                              In the meantime, Bhutanese authorities noticed activities of logging and road construction by China in the disputed territory. These activities were happening despite the goodwill created by the bilateral engagement between the countries. When this issue was raised by Bhutan, China proposed an interim agreement to maintain peace and tranquillity along the contentious borders. Bhutan accepted this and both the countries signed the Bhutan-China Agreement on Maintenance of Peace and Tranquillity along the Sino-Bhutanese Border Areas, 1998, on 8 December 1998 in the 12th round of border talks held at Beijing.

                              The signing of the Bhutan-China Agreement on Maintenance of Peace and Tranquillity along the Sino-Bhutanese Border Areas, 1998, was significant in more than one way. This became the first bilateral agreement, and for that matter first legal document, signed between Bhutan and China. China, for the first time, through the signing of this Agreement accepted the sovereignty and independent status of Bhutan. The Article 1 of the Agreement clearly states that as following:

                              Both sides hold the view that all countries big or small, strong or weak are equal and should respect one another. The Chinese side reaffirmed that it completely respects the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bhutan. Both sides stand ready to develop their good-neighbourly and friendly cooperative relations on the basis of the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-Existence.


                              The Article 3 of the Agreement resolves to maintain the status-quo of the Bhutan-China boundary as existed prior to March 1959. The Article reads as follows:

                              Both sides agreed that prior to the ultimate solution of the boundary issues, peace and tranquillity along the border should be maintained and the status quo of the boundary prior to March 1959 should be upheld, and not to resort to unilateral action to alter the status quo of the border.


                              As far as Bhutan is concerned, this Agreement has a special significance. With this, the claim of China over Bhutan ceased to exist. The acceptance of Bhutan as a sovereign independent state by China underlined a clear shift in Chinese policy towards Bhutan in particular and Himalayas in general. China wanted to project herself as a benign power towards the small states in South Asia. This Agreement with Bhutan was intended to advance this point and wean away Bhutan from Indian influence.

                              However, despite the signing of the Agreement on Maintenance of Peace and Tranquillity, China continued her intimidation of Bhutan by repeatedly carrying out incursions into Bhutanese territory. China indulged in road constructions in the disputed territory in 2004 and 2009 and many a time intruded into the Royal Bhutan Army (RBA) posts on the Bhutan-China border. This bullying tactic of China is to push for the package deal/swap deal which China offered to Bhutan in the 10th round of talks held in 1996. According to this proposed deal, China will relinquish her claim over the 495 sq km disputed territory in the central section provided Bhutan is ready to hand over the 269 sq km disputed territory in the north-western section.

                              The strategic advantage China derives out of this deal is the main driving factor for China to push this deal through. An informed opinion regarding the strategic benefit China will get from this deal is as follows:

                              The [north] western sector near the tri-junction of India-Bhutan-China border is not far from India’s ‘chicken’s neck’, a 24-km wide corridor (also known as the Siliguri Corridor) which connects mainland India to its north-eastern states. The reasons for the Chinese claim (in [north] western sector) seem not to be on the basis of traditional usage or history but owing to the strategic nature of the western border.


                              Considering the adverse effect this deal would create for India vis-à-vis China in strategic and security terms, Bhutan is not in a position to take a positive decision in this regard. China also understands that Bhutan cannot accept this ‘package deal’. The two-dimension strategy of armed incursions and pressure over the ‘package deal’, which China follows with regard to Bhutan, is intended to create a wedge within the Bhutanese elite to create a pro-China section. So far,efforts in this direction have not been fruitful.

                              Also, China believes that Bhutan will be compelled to enter into diplomatic relations with China under the above mentioned two-dimension strategy. For China, establishing diplomatic relations with Bhutan is much more important than resolving the border dispute. China knows that the resolution of the border dispute with Bhutan will happen only in the context of the resolution of the border dispute with India though they assert the other way around.
                              China has been trying for decades to reduce the advantage India holds over them in the area. As stated by the MEA : |
                              Last edited by Double Edge; 03 Aug 17,, 02:47.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                A coup plot so Gyanendra takes over ?

                                Which external party would that benefit. One royal seems as bad as the other. Given Nepal wants to play China off India, there isn't an incentive for either external party to engineer anything here. One day china is in favour and it swaps over another day. Ending up with both parties messing with you. Bhutan has been wise here.

                                Its not clear whether your friend is suggesting a raw hit here or not.
                                He didn't suggest anything. All he said was how revered was the King & Queen. And that Gyanendra was addicted to booze/drugs, gambling and prostitution, which was despised by the King.

                                What I am trying to say is that Dipendra was chased down and shot, from the back. Nobody was to survive that night. But obviously some did. It seems to benefit India in the interim. Can't say it worked out.

                                India doesn't release classified files, so we will never know. That's my assessment of the incident.
                                Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X