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

[Oracle]

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.

Why then is China literally begging India to join it time and again? Btw, the source is SCMP.

Some more for your perusal:
China's claims on Arunachal meaningless: Chinese scholar

Chinese media advises investors: India is much better than you think

Btw, you haven't replied since when have Singaporeans started learning Chinese version of history. You skipped it once, I expect an answer this time around. You cannot go selectively about what you answer. Whatever you write, you'll need to back it up.

[Oracle]

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.

haha

Your optimism is beyond norms. China is a one party dictatorship and it has been fueling terror regimes all over. You can't see it?

[Oracle]

PLA In The Last 50 Years: Just How Strong Is The Dragon?

PLA In The Last 50 Years: Just How Strong Is The Dragon?

China’s threat that India would suffer a fate worse than the defeat of 1962 is laughable. For the Chinese have conveniently forgotten that since that conflict nearly 50 years ago, it is Beijing that has suffered defeats – at the hands of India, Russia and Vietnam in that order. In fact, the last time the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) faced off against the Indian Army, it had to endure the ignominy of a humiliating climb down.

But first, a reality check. The 1962 defeat happened because of two reasons. One, the Indian Army wasn’t given the weapons and divisions it had been wanting since the mid-1950s for the defence of the Himalayas. When the Chinese invaded, an entire Indian brigade (of at least 2,000 troops) was equipped with just 100 rounds of ammunition and no grenades. Prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru and his arrogant protégé, defence minister V K Krishna Menon, kept up the pretence that China would not attack.

Second, India’s armed forces were not allowed to fight to their full potential. Ignoring India’s commanders, Nehru conferred with American ambassador John Kenneth Galbraith, who advised the prime minister not to use the Indian Air Force against the Chinese intruders. Before the war, the Nehru-Menon duopoly had ended the career of Korean War hero General Thimayya – who saw the Chinese as a threat to India early. They later promoted Lt General B M Kaul and General Pran Nath Thapar. These officers did not know where the border was.

However, with the exit of both Nehru and Menon, the era of the neglect of the defence forces ended to some extent. The impressive showing of the Indian Army in the 1965 War with Pakistan restored some pride. Russian and American military supplies boosted military strength.

While evaluating the Chinese threat, the thing to note is that the India of 2017 is not the same as the India of 1962. Besides, the Chinese are not exactly known for their fighting skills. The PLA may be the world’s largest army, but it has performed atrociously in a series of major conflicts.. This article examines four of China’s post-1962 conflicts and how the PLA fared against well-armed and professional armies.

Year: 1967

Opponent: India

Conflict: Nathu La and Cho La

Result: Chinese defeat

Casualties: PLA 340, Indian Army 65

On 7 September 1967, a PLA commissar asked the soldiers of 18 Rajput to stop fencing the border at Nathu La – a border pass in Sikkim, which back then was an Indian protectorate. When the soldiers refused, the Chinese launched an artillery attack. Unlike in 1962, the Indian Army was prepared. It had placed howitzers at strategic locations aimed at Chinese military positions. The Indian guns launched a withering counter-attack that stopped only after three days. Indian gunners scored several direct hits on enemy bunkers, including a command post from where the Chinese operations were being directed.

On 13 September, India announced a unilateral ceasefire – a fitting reply to China’s offer almost to the week.

Smarting under their humiliation, the Chinese attacked a second time on 1 October at the nearby Cho La pass. This time it was the men of the Gorkha regiment who engaged in close-quarter combat, killing 40 elite Chinese commandos, resulting in a massive PLA rout. However, the Indian Army withheld fire on their retreating enemy. The defeated Chinese left Sikkim and withdrew three kilometres from the border. Since then, Nathu La and Cho La have been under Indian control, and China has never claimed these passes.

Year: 1969

Opponent: Russia

Conflict: Ussuri river clash

Result: Chinese defeat

Casualties: PLA 800, Soviet Army 61

At 4,380km, the Russia-China land border is the world’s longest. But since Tsarist times, it had been poorly demarcated, with both countries having overlapping claims over it. In the 1960s, following the ideological split between the two Communist allies, the border became a flash point with 658,000 Soviet soldiers facing a million PLA troops. In March 1969, 61 Soviet soldiers died in a Chinese ambush, and their corpses were mutilated. The Russians hit back so hard that, in the words of Robert Gates, Central Intelligence Agency director at the time, from American satellite pictures, the Chinese side of the river bank was pockmarked like a moonscape. The Chinese death toll: over 800, with thousands more injured.

The Chinese stab in the back made the Russians so angry that they seriously considered launching a nuclear attack. Washington secretly wanted someone to eliminate the Chinese for them but decided that a hostile China on Russia’s border would be good to keep Moscow on edge.

China survived, but it was so traumatised by the disproportionate Russian military response that it immediately started looking for a strategic alliance with the United States. The bottom line: the Russia-China border has remained peaceful ever since.

Year: 1979

Opponent: Vietnam

Conflict: Full-scale Chinese invasion

Result: Chinese defeat

Casualties: PLA up to 63,000, Vietnamese army 26,000

In 1978, the battle-hardened Peoples Army of Vietnam (PAVN) – which had only three years ago defeated the mighty Americans – launched an invasion on Cambodia. The invasion ended the genocide being committed by the US and China-backed Pol Pot regime, which had murdered two million of the country’s eight million population.

In order to “teach Hanoi a lesson”, the following year, a 200,000-strong Chinese force invaded Vietnam. (Interestingly, the invasion took place when India’s foreign minister Atal Behari Vajpayee was visiting Beijing.) In the 29-day war that ensued, the highly trained VAPN defeated the PLA, killing up to 63,000 Chinese soldiers and capturing hundreds more.

In his 1985 book, Defending China, Gerald Segal writes that China's 1979 war against Vietnam was a complete failure: “China failed to force a Vietnamese withdrawal from Cambodia, failed to end border clashes, failed to cast doubt on the strength of the Soviet power, failed to dispel the image of China as a paper tiger, and failed to draw the United States into an anti-Soviet coalition.”

After years of unsuccessful negotiations, a border pact was finally signed between the two countries in 1999.

Year: 1986-87

Opponent: India

Conflict: Sumdorong Chu standoff

Result: Chinese pullback

Dead: No casualties

The last time the India-China border came live was in 1986-87, when the cunning Chinese did a Kargil on India in Arunachal Pradesh. In 1984 and 1985, the Indian Army had set up camps in the border areas in summer and returned to the foothills in winter. When they went back in 1986, they found the PLA had crossed the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and set up a military camp in the pasture on the banks of the Sumdorong Chu river in Tawang district. Incidentally, this was close to the Thag La ridge, where the two armies had fought a bloody battle in 1962.

With the Chinese refusing to move back and “supreme leader” Deng Xiaoping declaring his intention to teach India “another lesson”, army chief General Krishnaswami Sundarji launched Operation Falcon, airlifting T-72 tanks and BMP-armoured personnel carriers to the area, occupying the high ridges overlooking the Chinese positions. It was the exact opposite of the 1962 situation when the Chinese had the higher ground. Both armies were eyeball to eyeball for seven years when in August 1995 the Chinese finally blinked. The Chinese knew if the two armies clashed, 1962 would be reversed.

Lonesome dragon

For decades, Beijing has pursued a strategy of boxing up India in South Asia so that New Delhi is unable to compete with it globally. According to strategist Subhash Kapila, “China is a compulsive destabiliser of South Asian regional stability and security, with the end aim of keeping India off-balance.”

China cannot attack India because India’s military is modern, large and highly professional. Plus, a war would kill the market for Chinese goods in India. Beijing will therefore continue to use Pakistan to keep India down. New Delhi’s prime objective therefore should be to weaken Pakistan by supporting independence movements in Balochistan, Sindh and Khyber Pakthunkhwa.

That, more than anything else, would demoralise the Chinese.

Oh, and use proxies in Pakistan to attack CPEC installations and create unrest in Xinjiang and Tibet. India's moral standing has done nothing to complement its' soft/hard power. Time to change the dynamics of South-East Asia.

[Double Edge]

Your optimism is beyond norms. China is a one party dictatorship and it has been fueling terror regimes all over. You can't see it?

But willing to cut a deal when the time is right so anything is possible. What is the cost - benefit for China voting in favour over not. Not favours their position in Pakistan. Saying no is worth something. Question is what is a yes vote worth and does it have a sell by date which means its value depreciates with time. If so then no is the optimal choice for them. Holds value better and costs nothing.

Ever since the militants started threatening the families of police officers the state of J&K has launched operation All out. Going after every militant of worth and systematically taking them out. Masood Azhar is far away in Pakistan. If his operatives are rendered useless he is compromised. In addition they have charged the separatists with funding militancy in the valley. Now the people get to see the Hurriyat for what they really are, just proxies for Pakistan who have killed and threatened them all these years. No funding means a few banks have been knocked over by the militants to stay viable. How many stone throwers and mass gatherings are there going to be when funds are low. Further, any Pak soldiers on the border complicit in infiltrating militants are now legitimate targets so cease fire violations are deliberately up this year.

The aim is to reduce militants in Kashmir drastically at every point of the militant life cycle so the state can start to operate normally. Will require a concerted 5-10 yrs of this policy to get the place back. Its important to stay the course and not change or interrupt this policy. Short term the expectation is a calmer beginning to next year compared to the last.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psUu5ONmprI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8qAK8sBuZ4

China gambles it can get away with a no vote. They think since there haven't been any recent attacks that they are on top of things. In fact they're going after moderates as well which could backfire medium term.

[Oracle]

But willing to cut a deal when the time is right so anything is possible. What is the cost - benefit for China voting in favour over not. Not favours their position in Pakistan. Saying no is worth something. Question is what is a yes vote worth and does it have a sell by date which means its value depreciates with time. If so then no is the optimal choice for them. Holds value better and costs nothing.

For China to cut a deal with India, India has to force the Chinese into a corner to get rid of it's pro-Pak attitude. How will India do that?

You also need to see that China considers India a strategic rival and has been checkmating India since decades. NE is a lot better compared to earlier times, but it is not silent. Lots of China factors play up there now and then. And I'm sorry to say, development in the NE is happening at the same rate, as was during the Congress rule. India cannot cut any deal with the Chinese without getting the upper hand. How do we go about that? And Pak based terrorists is fairly economical for the Chinese to tie down India.

Don't think about it in the sense that in 5-10 years this will happen, or that will happen etc. India gets caught up in a time wrap and later finds out that nothing has worked at all. Just like the Nehruvian 5 year plans. Nothing is going to change Chinese belligerence and interference, unless India forces the Chinese to change. That means significant cuts.

Ever since the militants started threatening the families of police officers the state of J&K has launched operation All out. Going after every militant of worth and systematically taking them out. Masood Azhar is far away in Pakistan. If his operatives are rendered useless he is compromised. In addition they have charged the separatists with funding militancy in the valley. Now the people get to see the Hurriyat for what they really are, just proxies for Pakistan who have killed and threatened them all these years. No funding means a few banks have been knocked over by the militants to stay viable. How many stone throwers and mass gatherings are there going to be when funds are low. Further, any Pak soldiers on the border complicit in infiltrating militants are now legitimate targets so cease fire violations are deliberately up this year.

The aim is to reduce militants in Kashmir drastically at every point of the militant life cycle so the state can start to operate normally. Will require a concerted 5-10 yrs of this policy to get the place back. Its important to stay the course and not change or interrupt this policy. Short term the expectation is a calmer beginning to next year compared to the last.

Not disagreeing. But you have to take into account the brazenness of the Paks when it comes to sponsoring terrorism against India. Now, they do it with Chinas' approval. It suits the Chinese for India to be bogged down in the north, east as well as in the interiors (naxals).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psUu5ONmprI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8qAK8sBuZ4

China gambles it can get away with a no vote. They think since there haven't been any recent attacks that they are on top of things. In fact they're going after moderates as well which could backfire medium term.

Yep, this is where the chink is in Chinese armor. Tibet too. If the Chinese has to feel the pain and get cornered, India needs to adopt, adjust and re-calibrate it's foreign policy in that direction. It takes a lot of money to fight terrorists, forever. Why not use some and give Pak+China combine the same dosage. Can India do it? Hell yeah! Is India doing it? Unfortunately, NO.

I haven't watched the videos yet (later), but the interim measure is to strengthen the Armed Forces, so that when push comes to shove, both rouge nations are dealt with adequately and appropriately.

[Oracle]

China's 'salami slicing': Why Doklam must unite world leaders against Beijing

China May Undertake Military Operation to 'Expel' Indian Troops, Says Media Report

Excerpts from the second link:

"The series of remarks from the Chinese side within a 24-hour period sends a signal to India that there is no way China will tolerate the Indian troops' incursion into Chinese territory for too long. If India refuses to withdraw, China may conduct a small-scale military operation within two weeks," state-owned Global Times quoted Hu Zhiyong, a research fellow at the Institute of International Relations of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, as saying.

Hu, however, added that China will inform India's foreign ministry before undertaking any such operation.

WTF was that? Lol.

[DOR]

Your optimism is beyond norms. China is a one party dictatorship and it has been fueling terror regimes all over. You can't see it?

Any concrete evidence of that?

[DOR]

PLA In The Last 50 Years: Just How Strong Is The Dragon?



Oh, and use proxies in Pakistan to attack CPEC installations and create unrest in Xinjiang and Tibet. India's moral standing has done nothing to complement its' soft/hard power. Time to change the dynamics of South-East Asia.

1969:

China survived, but it was so traumatised by the disproportionate Russian military response that it immediately started looking for a strategic alliance with the United States. The bottom line: the Russia-China border has remained peaceful ever since.

Bullshit.
Sino-American rapprochement had very little to do with the Sino-Soviet clash on the Ussuri River. It had been in the works for years, and the Sino-Soviet split was more than a dozen years old at that point.

Yes, Nixon/Kissinger shared satellite photos of USSR troop placements with the PRC, but that wasn’t the cause of China opening up to the West.

As for the Sino-Viet war, it wasn’t just 1979. It lasted for a decade, and there is considerable disagreement as to whether either side “won.”

[Double Edge]

For China to cut a deal with India, India has to force the Chinese into a corner to get rid of it's pro-Pak attitude. How will India do that?

You also need to see that China considers India a strategic rival and has been checkmating India since decades.

They hardened their stance around 2014 reasons for which are unclear where they've blocked us five times, earlier they were cooperative and in fact co-sponsored any terrorist related resolutions we wanted to pass at the UN

Listen to Suhasini from 11:15 onwards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmhavpmVXOs&t=11m15s

They supported us three times
declaring LeT as a terrorist group
declaring JeM as a terorist group
declaring Hafeez Saeed as a terrorist

source for the above btw is Suhasni Haidar on the latest "security scan" program on rstv

What did we give them for those 'favours'

If you want to know what happens when Azhar gets declared as a terrorist, see Hafeez saeed, who is already on that list. How much of a difference does it make.

[Oracle]

Any concrete evidence of that?

Pak and NKorea.

Nuke proliferation.

Going against other P4 countrie and putting on hold the ban on Masood. These are traits of a terror supporting country.


China’s boost to North Korean nukes

How North Korea Got Its “Made in China” Nukes

Pakistan’s sale of nuclear materials to N Korea hushed up by China

U.S. sanctions Chinese firm tied to North Korea's nuclear program

Why China Helped Countries Like Pakistan, North Korea Build Nuclear Bombs

Snippets from Arms Control and Proliferation Profile: China

Missile Technology Control Regime

Not a member. China, in 2004, applied for membership, but Beijing did not receive the necessary consensus approval of the group because the United States and some other countries continue to find fault with Chinese missile and technology exports. China says it abides by the MTCR guidelines.

Proliferation Record

China has a record of assisting states with nuclear and missile programs in the past, but in 2000, China made a public commitment not to assist “in any way, any country in the development of ballistic missiles that can be used to deliver nuclear weapons.”

China has aided Pakistan’s nuclear and missile programs among other states. Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia have also been identified as recipients of sensitive technologies and materials from China.

The China Nuclear Energy Industry Corporation (CNEIC)—with government authorization—has exported Miniature Neutron Source Reactors (MNSR) to Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Ghana, and Nigeria. These reactors run on highly enriched uranium fuel, albeit a fraction of what is necessary for a nuclear warhead, which has been supplied by China to recipient states.

There have been efforts made by China to work with those states to convert these reactors to use low enriched uranium fuel, including a 2010 agreement between the U.S. Argonne National Laboratory and the China Institute of Atomic Energy for a new facility in China to produce LEU replacement cores in MNSR's.

Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG) members, including the United States, saw enough improvement in China’s nuclear export behavior that they extended membership to China in 2004.

Nonetheless, China has sold reactors to Pakistan, as was revealed in a 2010 agreement between the two nations. This trade, however, contravenes NSG guidelines.

China’s bid to join the Missile Technology Control Regime failed in 2004, citing continuing concerns about Chinese missile and missile technology transactions. China, however, maintains that it voluntarily abides by the regime’s guidelines.

A 2016 State Department Compliance report cited that “in 2015, Chinese entities continued to supply missile programs of proliferation concern.”
Chinese entities have been regularly sanctioned for nonproliferation violations by the U.S. government. For example, 2016 had seen a slew of Chinese entities sanctioned under the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA) sanctions.

The United States has also, at various times, imposed sanctions on Chinese entities for missile and chemical weapons related transfers to Pakistan and Iran such as the provision of dual-use chemical weapons precursors and production equipment to Iran beginning in 1997.

The 1267 Committee, China’s hold and Masood Azhar: A short history

China extends technical hold on Masood Azhar’s terror listing at the UN

Is China launching a proxy war? Leaked IB report on North East India raises new questions

Gunrunners of North-East

China’s Involvement in India’s Internal Security Threats

Maoists building weapons factories in India with help from China

[Oracle]

They hardened their stance around 2014 reasons for which are unclear where they've blocked us five times, earlier they were cooperative and in fact co-sponsored any terrorist related resolutions we wanted to pass at the UN

Listen to Suhasini from 11:15 onwards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmhavpmVXOs&t=11m15s

If you want to know what happens when Azhar gets declared as a terrorist, see Hafeez saeed, who is already on that list. How much of a difference does it make.

Do not disagree with you. China has openly drummed up it's support for terrorists in Pakistan, and the only difference it makes is that in future India too might respond in kind with the Uighurs and the Tibetans. What a scene that would be.

[Double Edge]

Interesting post on Quora by a chinese guy living outside China.

[Oracle]

Interesting post on Quora by a chinese guy living outside China.

I've read it, and some more from Chinese guys living outside China, as well as some in China too. General public on both sides are calm and are not giving it much thought. Overall in Quora, the perception of India among Chinese is good and vice-versa.

[Double Edge]

Can India pin down border negotiations while China keeps shifting goalposts? | Scroll | Aug 03 2017

Experts Decode China’s Doklam Dare: Troops Won’t Wait Indefinitely | Quint | Jul 20 2017

Stobdan stands out in his critiques of India's Himalayan policy. He wonders if we even have one or whether we're following some one else's script

How do you explain China pulling “Kashmir” into the narrative, something it has not been that keen on doing in the past?

Ajai Shukla: China is playing a game of brinkmanship here. It is going further on several counts than it has ever before and there are probably good reasons why the decision makers in Beijing have decided to do so. India is in a confrontation with China over Kashmir from the statement that it issued while deciding not to go for the Belt and Road initiative in Beijing and that is how it’s going to go in the future.

[Double Edge]

Gets into this 'status quo' thing we keep bringing up

Some higher up must have had a word with GT because now they want to show they can have civil discussions : D

The Chinese layperson must think India is the belligerent. If one goes by their media

China is building a road on ITS territory.

Suddenly Indians come over and tell them they can't build a road on THEIR territory. Said Indians then squat on THEIR territory and refuse to leave

Best part ? India isn't even claiming this territory. Somebody else is.

So why is India sitting on THEIR territory and why is India saying China cannot build a road on THEIR territory.

Furthermore India is insisting China must leave THEIR territory as a precondition for withdrawal.

How is China in the wrong here !!!!

Who changed the status quo ? India.

So naturally, India must first vacate before talks can begin.

All makes sense (if you're Chinese) doesn't it :D