India incursion and Chinese standoff at Dolam, Bhutan

Status
Not open for further replies.

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
There are always some hot-head in every country, even majority at extreme time like WWII. We have seen Chinese hot-head. One of my Pakistani friend is a hot-head because he is born in Kashmir.

There are more hot-head people in defence forum than on the street because people interested in military subject are more into fight or interested. In other words, not necessarily representative of the mass.


We will never know. On the one hand, Nehru was a perfect example of that over-confidence and truly but wrongfully believed in something.

But before Modi make himself another Nehru, everything is possible, we simply don't know what is in his mind right now. There is a chance he is rational regardless what he say. Think about NK and US, so many grand-standings for decades. For that possibility of rationality in Modi, it worth the wait. It is better to wait than shoot (even wining) that will create a mini cold war between China and India for decades to come which is exactly what China's other rivalry is hoping and pushing.

It's useful to remember what happened 15 years ago, when Modi was the Chief Minister of Gujarat State and its population of 60million.

He condoned the killing and looting of its Muslim minority for an almost an ENTIRE WEEK during the Gujarat riots.

And this is the reason why Modi was Persona Non Grata in the USA for years afterwards, until the US had no chance but to deal with him because he became the Prime Minister.

But by most accounts, he has (largely) learned from that mistake and to control himself.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
India argument for entering the Doklam area on behalf of Bhutan doesn't hold water. It set a dangerous precedent whereas any third country can enter fray on the behalf of disputant. It will be chaos and undermining century of National sovereignty convention

What if invoking the same argument China enter Khasmir area?
I was watching this TV program pitting Chinese general against Indian journalist and the general is on defensive because of his poor english until at the end when he posed the same question . The indian guy can't answer back

Here is excerpt from the meeting between Indian Journalist and PLA representative. She basically said Indian speak with fork tongue
“The Indian border troops are sending a signal of aggression while the signals sent by the foreign ministry is for peaceful negotiations. So, we think these two signals do not match with each other,” she said.

China says talks with India on Doklam not possible now
China rules out the possibility of a dialogue with New Delhi as long as Indian troops were in the disputed Doklam plateau
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China claimed it was constructing the road within their territory and has been demanding immediate pull-out of the Indian troops from the disputed Doklam plateau.

Brushing aside Indian suggestions of a simultaneous withdrawal by Indian and Chinese troops from Doklam to end a nearly two-month-old military standoff, China on Tuesday ruled out the possibility of a dialogue with New Delhi as long as Indian troops were in the disputed northeastern plateau.

Beijing also warned of its “determination” to preserve its sovereignty at all costs.

According to China, India has “trespassed” into Chinese territory at Doklam—which China claims as its Donglang region. India on its part contends that China has intruded into Bhutanese territory from where it could progress inwards to cut off India’s access to its northeastern region.

“Even if there is only one Indian soldier, even for a day it is still a violation of our sovereignty and territorial integrity,” Wang Wenli, deputy director general of the Boundary and Ocean Affairs of China’s ministry of foreign affairs, was cited as saying by PTI in Beijing.

Wang was briefing a group of Indian journalists whose visit to Beijing was sponsored by the state-run All-China Journalists Association (ACJA), on China’s stand on the Doklam standoff.

“It is impossible to have a dialogue with India at this time. Our people will think our government is incompetent,” Wang was cited as saying, adding: “Until the Indian side withdraws from the Chinese territory, there will be no substantive talks between us.”

She also reiterated Beijing’s position that the only way to end the present crisis was the withdrawal of Indian troops from Doklam.

India says that it has reached an agreement with China in 2012 under which areas like Doklam which fall in the tri-junction between India, Bhutan and China should be resolved by India and China taking into account Bhutanese concerns and sensitivities.

“The Indian side has also many tri-junctions. What if we use the same excuse and enter the Kalapani region between China, India and Nepal or even into the Kashmir region between India and Pakistan,” Wang said.

Asked whether China was getting ready for a war with India, Wang said, “I can only say that for the PLA (People’s Liberation Army) and for the Chinese government, we have the determination. So, if the Indian side decides to go down the wrong path or still have illusions about this incident, then we have the right to use any act that is in line with the international law to protect our rights.” Wang said.

“The Indian border troops are sending a signal of aggression while the signals sent by the foreign ministry is for peaceful negotiations. So, we think these two signals do not match with each other,” she said.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Neither Japan or the US has any joint military alliance with India to mandate a joint response if PRC strikes.
On the other hand it would be a nice rationalization to develop a selected embargo against PRCas a response.
Basically PRC would need to weigh which would be more beneficial a war to maintain administration to nowhere to save face resulting to a possible embargo by the world or go through diplomatic channels to defuse the situation with small economic loss and partial loss of face depending on how the PR department is able to spin the news.

China is permanent member of UN security counsel and hold veto power. Beside sanction against china is easier said than done . You can sanction Russia but China ?
I have responded to the same question in economic thread . It basically mean all your department store will be empty

NO it has nothing to do with face saving and everything to do with Principle of self defense as enshrine in article 51 of UN Charter
The PLA spokesman Wu Quan has already said the PRC will pay any price to maintain national sovereignty

Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
China is permanent member of UN security counsel and hold veto power. Beside sanction against china is easier said than done . You can sanction Russia but China ?
I have responded to the same question in economic thread . It basically mean all your department store will be empty

NO it has nothing to do with face saving and everything to do with Principle of self defense as enshrine in article 51 of UN Charter
The PLA spokesman Wu Quan has already said the PRC will pay any price to maintain national sovereignty

Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The whole world coming together to sanction China is little Japan's wet fantasy, and it's a typical dream for a little guy, the whole world coming together to help them, make them feel so warm and protected LOL. Pack-rat mentality means that even in their dreams, they achieve something through everyone's support (even if there is no reason for that imaginary support to exist like in Japan's case). Strong countries like China, Russia, USA impose unilateral sanctions and aim to be champion alone through their own endeavors.

In the end, the Japanese will keep fantasizing because for a small guy, the reality that they ultimately have to overcome their own problems and defeat their own daunting foes is too painful. This isn't a movie and in real life, the little guy often just gets run over, especially if they are stagnant and have been for decades.

The fact is there is no motivation for the vast majority of countries to even think about sanctioning China even if China just beat the daylights out of India for this matter. And of those that do want to sanction China, they want to for other reasons entirely, couldn't do it in the past, and won't find the appetite for economic risk to do it in the foreseeable future either.
 

vesicles

Colonel
Obviously, China won't allow the Indian troops to stay there indefinitely. My guess is that China has its own deadline in mind, 3 months, 6 months or whatever. If I have to guess, it would be when you see China all of a sudden intensifies its diplomatic efforts. You know they are about to do something. It's their way of showing to the world that they have tried everything possible and they have no choice but to use force.

When that deadline comes, china will inform the UN of its intention. My guess is that China has already informed the UN what they intend to do after the deadline. And China will keep the UN informed until the end so that China can have legal documentation of everything that they have done.

And on the deadline, China will most likely send in PLA/PAP spec ops to gather all the Indian troops for deportation or detainment. I'm sure various PLA/PAP spec ops units are at this very moment practicing the mission. When they finally do it, it will be overwhelming, with fighter planes above to maintain air superiority, many attack choppers for close air support and spec ops on the ground. If the Indians still keep their 40 people there, the Chinese will most likely send it a lot more, maybe hundreds. It will be so overwhelming that no shots will need to be fired. In fact, that would be the main goal: no shots fired and no injuries or casualties.

Once the ground is clear, china will go to negotiation table with the Indians. At that point, china will have all the advantages in hand.
 

vesicles

Colonel
Of course my above post is very idealistic. The question is what the Indians would do to counter it.

I would imagine the Indians also anticipate that China would mount such attacks.

What are the Indians doing to counter such possibility?

Can those who are better informed let us know what each side is doing at/near ground zero? How are the Chinese and Indians positioning their troops and equipment within 200 square miles of the site?
 

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
What are the Indians doing to counter such possibility?

I posted the same method in CDF last weekend, the only thing i have in addtion to your suggestion is to move long range artilleries and have cruise missiles carrying H-6K ready.

India may get desperate and bomb the area with artilleries
 
There are some honest voices in India, they are probably not heeded by the Modi regime though.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Way Out of Doklam Is To Let Bhutan Handle It with China: Karat
THE CITIZEN BUREAU

Tuesday, August 08,2017

NEW DELHI: “India must seriously consider ways to diffusethe situation with China And the key lies in our accepting that this issue is between Bhutan and China and leave it to the Bhutanese to handle it,” said former general secretary CPI(M) Prakash Karat.

In an interview to The Citizen on the India-China face off in Doklam, Karat said that New Dehi does not seem to be understanding the seriousness of the Chinese intentions. He said that China had spelt this out clearly in its official document and made it clear that India has no jurisdiction in its view at all. Beijing has repeatedly urged New Delhi to withdraw its troops from Doklam, and made it clear that any negotiations can only follow, and not precede this. (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

Karat said that the government was downplaying the issue, and it does seem as if some (China claims only 40 of the 400 Indian soldiers now remain) troops have been withdrawn. But clearly this is not enough for Beijing to climb down and the best way out of this impasse would be for India to move out and allow Bhutan to step in and negotiate directly with the Chinese about the construction of the road and related issues.

Bhutan currenty is absent from the picture, having reacted to the Chinese construction of the road several days after it had started, under Indian pressure. Since the two month face-off in which relations between Beijing and New Delhi have dipped alarmingly Bhutan has remained silent with not a word on the issue that has its two big neighbours almost at war.

Karat was critical of the ‘confused approach’ of the Modi government regarding bilateral relations with China and neighbouring countries. He said it was unfortunate that the initiatives Prime Minister Narendra Modi had taken initially with China had petered out. Indian foreign policy, he added, is in complete disarray, even more so with regard to the neighbourhood.

He said that the pro-US tilt had been further accentuated under this government with the strategic agreements reached during the visit of then US President Barack Obama to India--Pivot to Asia--being the most “explicit declaration” of the decisive shift towards the US. the Prime Minister Narendra Modi who had started with some initiatives

Asked about the latest Chinese threat of military action in two weeks, Karat said that while China might not move into a military conflict as soon as that, it would certainly take measures in other spheres such as economic trade, against India.

Meanwhile Chinese official media is keeping up the offensive, with China spending these days briefing other missions. Its embassy in India briefed the Nepal counterparts a day ago. It is not clear whether India has taken other governments into confidence, except perhaps for the Americans. China is issuing statements on a daily basis and as a former Indian diplomat pointed out, agreeing with Karat, that this is well out of the realm of rhetoric. And that the statements indicate a seriousness that India would be well advised not to ignore.

The Global Times has expressed “shock” at what it claimed is India’s “recklessness” in a commentary titled “Modi must not pull India into recless conflict.” And goes on to state, “India is concerned that the road China was building in Doklam might threaten the security of the Siliguri Corridor, but does that justify Indian troops' incursion into another country in utter disregard of international treaties?

India is publicly challenging a country that is far superior in strength. India's recklessness has shocked Chinese. Maybe its regional hegemonism in South Asia and the Western media comments have blinded New Delhi into believing that it can treat a giant to its north in the way it bullies other South Asian countries.

Over the past month, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) has been on the move. We believe that the PLA has made sufficient preparation for military confrontation.

It is a war with an obvious result. The government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi should be aware of the PLA's overwhelming firepower and logistics. Indian border troops are no rival to PLA field forces. If a war spreads, the PLA is perfectly capable of annihilating all Indian troops in the border region.

So why hasn't the PLA started? China cherishes the decade-long peace on the border and wishes not to break it. We want to give peace a chance and allow India to recognize the grave consequences.

The Modi government's hard-line stance is sustained by neither laws nor strength. This administration is recklessly breaking international norms and jeopardizing India's national pride and peaceful development.”

Xinhua in a long commentary has raised and answered the following questions:

What happened on June 18?

On June 16, the Chinese side was building a road in the Dong Lang area (Doklam), located in Yadong county of the Tibet Autonomous Region of China.On June 18, over 270 Indian border troops, carrying weapons and driving two bulldozers, crossed the boundary in the Sikkim Sector and advanced more than 100 meters into Chinese territory to obstruct the road building of the Chinese side, causing tension in the area.

The trespassing Indian troops, reaching as many as 400 people at one point, put up three tents and advanced over 180 meters into Chinese territory. As of the end of July, there were still over 40 Indian border troops and one bulldozer illegally staying in Chinese territory.

Does the Dong Lang area belong to China?

Yes.

The main focus of the dispute is the Dong Lang area.

In 1890, China and Britain signed the Convention Between Great Britain and China Relating to Sikkim and Tibet. Article I of the Convention stipulates that "The boundary of Sikkim and Tibet shall be the crest of the mountain range separating the waters flowing into the Sikkim Teesta and its affluents from the waters flowing into the Tibetan Mochu and northwards into other Rivers of Tibet. The line commences at Mount Gipmochi (currently known as Mount Ji Mu Ma Zhen) on the Bhutan frontier, and follows the above-mentioned water-parting to the point where it meets Nipal territory."

According to the Convention, the Dong Lang area, which is located on the Chinese side of the China-India boundary, is indisputably Chinese territory.

The stability and inviolability of boundaries are a fundamental principle enshrined in international law. The China-India boundary in the Sikkim Sector as delimited by the 1890 Convention has been continuously valid and repeatedly reaffirmed by both the Chinese and Indian sides. Either side shall strictly abide by the boundary which shall not be violated.

Is Bhutan involved in the incident?

No.

The 1890 Convention has made it clear that the China-India boundary in the Sikkim Sector commences at Mount Ji Mu Ma Zhen on the Bhutan frontier. Mount Ji Mu Ma Zhen is the eastern starting point of the China-India boundary in the Sikkim Sector and it is also the boundary tri-junction between China, India and Bhutan.

The Indian troops' trespassing occurred at a place on the China-India boundary in the Sikkim Sector, more than 2,000 meters away from Mount Ji Mu Ma Zhen. Matters concerning the boundary tri-junction have nothing to do with this incident. China and Bhutan have been engaged in negotiations and consultations to resolve their boundary issue since the 1980s. Although the boundary is yet to be formally delimited, the two sides have had 24 rounds of talks, conducted joint surveys in their border area and have reached basic consensus on the actual state of the border area and the alignment of their boundary.

What are the consequences of India's illegally crossing the China-India border?

According to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly Resolution 3314 adopted on Dec. 14, 1974, no consideration of whatsoever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for the invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State.

To cross a delimited boundary and enter the territory of a neighboring country on the grounds of so-called "security concerns," for whatever activities, runs counter to the basic principles of international law and basic norms governing international relations.

As a third party, India has no right to interfere in or impede the boundary talks between China and Bhutan, nor does it have the right to make territorial claims on Bhutan's behalf. India's intrusion into Chinese territory under the pretext of Bhutan has not only violated China's territorial sovereignty, but also challenged Bhutan's sovereignty and independence.

The Chinese government urges the Indian government to immediately withdraw its trespassing border troops back to the Indian side of the boundary and conduct a thorough investigation into the illegal trespassing so as to swiftly and appropriately resolve the incident and restore peace and tranquility to the border area between the two countries.
 
India argument for entering the Doklam area on behalf of Bhutan doesn't hold water. It set a dangerous precedent whereas any third country can enter fray on the behalf of disputant. It will be chaos and undermining century of National sovereignty convention

What if invoking the same argument China enter Khasmir area?
I was watching this TV program pitting Chinese general against Indian journalist and the general is on defensive because of his poor english until at the end when he posed the same question . The indian guy can't answer back

Here is excerpt from the meeting between Indian Journalist and PLA representative. She basically said Indian speak with fork tongue
“The Indian border troops are sending a signal of aggression while the signals sent by the foreign ministry is for peaceful negotiations. So, we think these two signals do not match with each other,” she said.

China says talks with India on Doklam not possible now
China rules out the possibility of a dialogue with New Delhi as long as Indian troops were in the disputed Doklam plateau
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As mentioned before and apparently reiterated today by the Chinese government to Indian media was that China gave India advance notice twice regarding the road building and did not receive a response from India.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


After 50-Day Doklam Standoff, China’s Defense Ministry Invites Indian Media Over
China’s Defense Ministry tries to send a goodwill signal directly to India.

By Charlotte Gao
August 09, 2017

China and India have been locked in a standoff in the Doklam area for 50 days after Indian troops stopped the Chinese Army from building a road in the area in mid-June. To break the ice, China’s Defense Ministry invited a delegation of Indian media over to the ministry for a direct dialogue on August 7. However, the meeting was not made public by the ministry on its website nor reported by Chinese local media until now.

According to multiple Indian media outlets, a few Indian journalists have been visiting China’s Defense Ministry in Beijing and having face-to-face dialogues with high-level officers of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The dialogue was organized by the All China Journalist Association, a semi-governmental organization led by the Communist Party of China.

In the meeting, China’s Defense Ministry expressed some exclusive opinions that were rarely reported before. And one of the most important signals the ministry sent was that the hawkish rhetoric some Chinese state media had published does not represent China’s official position.

Based on the reports of Indian daily newspapers The Economic Times and The Times of India, China’s Defense Ministry’s spokesman, Sr. Col. Ren Guoqiang, told the Indian journalists that some views — such as “China is considering small-scale military operation to remove Indian troops” — reported by China’s hawkish government-run media (Global Times in particular) cannot represent the position of the Defense Ministry.

“This kind of reports represents the view of the media and think-tanks,” Ren pointed out straightforwardly. “For official information please refer to the statements of Foreign Ministry and Defense Ministry spokespersons.”

Although Ren reaffirmed China’s position that “Indian troops must withdraw from the Doklam spot and no one should not underestimate China’s resolve to defend its territory,” he also emphasized several important details to show that China didn’t mean to provoke India in the first place.

Ren pointed out that “out of goodwill” China had informed India twice — on May 18 and again June 8 — about China’s plan to build the road in the area, through the border meeting mechanism. However, India never replied to China until the standoff broke out.

The Defense Ministry’s direct dialogue with the Indian media showed apparently the ministry’s intention to clear the hawkish fog and to send a goodwill signal to India — and only to India, since the ministry didn’t make the information public to China’s domestic media.

It is noteworthy that besides hawkish Chinese media, China’s Foreign Ministry itself has made some aggressive remarks, too. Given Ren’s comments, it raises an interesting question as to whether China’s high-level decision-making officials have been torn by contradicting positions in terms of the standoff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top