Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

[sanjaykumar]

The Chinese had no business to build the bridge at 27.581000 89.033616 and the road leading upwards to the fortification at 27.562056 89.080093. This is Bhutanese territory. Any idea when this happened?



Late 2014

[yensoy]

Again, there is nowhere else but the border they can hit. And they have to travel through the rarified air of Tibet to get to the border. They have only 24 fighters not by choice. It was imposed on them by geography and geo-politics. We hold overwhelming advantages in men and material.

Bullshit. You are depending on hope again. There is no chance that OBOR goes away with Eleven. Once projects like those go into gear they are nearly impossible to stop. And no, we won't catch or narrow the gap in the next 10-20 years.

I am glad you don't make big decisions like going to war.

They can hit us from around Yunnan, or via Pak, with mid-air refuelling. But if you think they will only use planes, you are only displaying your ignorance. This is not Mahabharata - elephant against elephant, horse against horse kind of thinking.

Regarding economy and continued exponential growth, a whole different discussion - it can't go on for ever.

[Iyersan]

But isn't yesterday a victory in itself. We should celebrate. We are winning thr PSY ops. Indian media is not going rabid about the Dispute. Most intriguing is the end result. What will happen. Eleven asks for peaceful resolution of the border dispute. The unsaid point is that any peaceful resolution for this issue as per Chinese foreign ministry is only post unconditional withdrawal of Indian troops from Dokalan.
Paskistan is showing its antics on the border
Do we have a 2 and 1/2 war gamed ( discussed) in BRF .
They will spread us thin
I am a Hawk and I sincerely believe that China should be the major focus of our threat perception. But even in BRF we are more PAK centric
Could there be a serious analysis of the 2 and 1/2 front scenario. Which will definitely happen. If not now then in the near future

[pankajs]

^
Imagine if the IA started celebrating *victory* just because eleven pins shook hand with Modi while nothing has changed on the ground.

Chinese might have over promised and under delivered to their public but that is no cause for celebration in India. When we search for an elusive victory in words, sound bites and gestures rather than on the ground facts we are setting ourselves up for defeat.

[Deans]

guys, for the uninitiated, can someone write a page or two on armed conflicts, possibilities, how many men and machine we can field vs Chinese, what limitation the environment poses and how either party can mitigate is.

Fanne ji, The thread `Latest Chinese boast...' deals comprehensively with the questions you ask. In particular, the posts of Shiv & Rohit Vats who are, in my view, subject matter experts. My view in brief is:
- We outnumber the PLA along the LAC. Even if the PLA takes a couple of months to bring up all its forces in the Western theatre command (leaving nothing in Xinjaing) and some reserves, there would not be sufficient superiority over our forces, assuming we bring up modest reserves and don't disturb Pakistan oriented formations.
- The PLAAF has some 288 modern aircraft (J10/11) in the Western theatre. That is less than the aircraft the IAF has on bases within range of the LAC and, as you suggest, the PLAAF has to either operate from way behind the LAC (outside Tibet), or accept a huge payload penalty operating from Tibetan bases. There is insufficient air to air refuelling capacity for the PLAAF.

That is as far as comparing numbers goes. The non quantifiable factors are :
The quality of men - We have a professional army, defending our country and who have an intimate knowledge of the terrain - vs. a mostly conscript army, fighting at high altitude, amidst a hostile populace.
Firepower: China arguably has superior firepower per division, weather it is sufficient to enable even local breakthroughs is debatable, considering the previous point.
Logistics: Both sides have limitations. Ours are known. The PLA's supposed superiority (8 lane highways upto the LAC), is not what it is made
out to be. Constraints of logistics and weather generally favour the defender.
China's advantage in firepower and logistics will be steadily eroded, as we get our act together on procurement and border infrastructure.

I would expect the Chinese to do more damage than we can, in cyber warfare, psy ops, pre-emptive missile strikes etc considering that it is part
of PLA doctrine and we have neglected these areas. On the other hand, our special forces, incl. Tibetans should have an edge over their PLA counterparts.

[AlapArya]

Emperor Eleven Gin Pegs is actually an excellent and able administrator. In the upcoming weeks, he is due to be accorded more power by the Commie Politburo meeting and since he is under the heat under a lot of international border issues (especially that of North Korea and SCS), he is being pushed by fanatics in his party to pick on 'weak Bhutan and their daddy India' to score cheap headlines for their mouthpiece Global Times and to raise the morale of the proletariat in their society. Eleven Gin Pegs, however, knows not waste China's time on worthless issues as they have to worry about Trump dressing down the fat Koryo with his new pencil sized ICBM play things. However, this entire nautanki on the border is just a transpiration of the political infighting of top Chinese commie officials and we should just maintain the status quo. Modi's main focus should be on exposing and delegitimizing Na-pakistan which he is successfully doing.

[Iyersan]

Wang Dehua: Xi-Modi meeting does not signal a quick end to the troop standoff — "the ball is in India’s court" though the intruder is China!

[Philip]

Emperor XI Gins,will ahave to endure a long stand-off with India.The ball will be kicked back into China along with his troops if they out stay their non-welcome.We must plan how to up the ante,with moves offensive on our side.

[DrRatnadip]

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/red-car ... 497877.cms

India rolls out the red carpet for Myanmar military chief, with an eye firmly on China

NEW DELHI: India is going all out to make Myanmar military chief's eight-day visit here a resounding success with top-level meetings, visits to defence establishments and a series of banquets, at a time when Indian and Chinese troops are locked in a continuing stand-off near the Sikkim-Bhutan-Tibet tri-junction.

[DrRatnadip]

Indian troops stopped Chinese road construction.. That means some area of doka la plateu which is Bhutanese territory is occupied by PLA.. There is no way chinese are going to vacate it.. Do we really have any other option than using force/ or accept status quo? I dont know how much area panda has already swallowed..

[Iyersan]

Asia’s colossus threatens a tiny state
Bhutan, one of the world’s smallest nations, has protested that the Asian colossus, China, is chipping away at its territory by building a strategic highway near the Tibet-India-Bhutan trijunction in the Himalayas. Bhutan has security arrangements with India, and the construction has triggered a tense standoff between Chinese and Indian troops at the trijunction, with the Chinese state media warning of the possibility of war.

Bhutan says “China’s construction of the road inside Bhutanese territory is a direct violation” of its agreements with Beijing. China, however, has sought to obscure its aggression by blaming India for not respecting either the trijunction points or the boundary between Tibet and the Indian state of Sikkim, which is also contiguous to Bhutan.

In the way an increasingly muscular China — without firing a single shot — has waged stealth wars to change the status quo in the South and East China seas, it has been making furtive encroachments across its Himalayan frontiers with the intent to expand its control meter by meter, kilometer by kilometer. It has targeted strategic areas in particular.

If its land grab is challenged, China tends to play the victim, including accusing the other side of making a dangerous provocation. And to mask the real issue involved, it chooses to wage a furious propaganda war. Both these elements have vividly been on display in the current troop standoff at the edge of the Chumbi Valley, a Chinese-controlled zone that forms a wedge between Bhutan and Sikkim, and juts out as a dagger against a thin strip of Indian territory known as the Chicken Neck, which connects India’s northeast to the rest of the country.

In recent years, China has been upgrading its military infrastructure and deployments in this highly strategic region so that, in the event of a war, its military blitzkrieg can cut off India from its northeast. Such an invasion would also leave Bhutan completely surrounded and at China’s mercy.

INDIA-BHUTAN DEFENSE TIES
Bhutan, with a population of only 750,000, shares some of its national defense responsibilities with India under a friendship treaty. Indian troops, for example, assist the undersized Royal Bhutan Army in guarding the vulnerable portions of Bhutan’s border with China.

The 2007 Bhutan-India friendship treaty states that the two neighbors “shall cooperate closely with each other on issues relating to their national interests.” The 2007 pact — signed after the Himalayan kingdom introduced major political reforms to emerge as the world’s newest democracy — replaced their 1949 treaty under which Bhutan effectively was an Indian protectorate, with one of the clauses stipulating that it would be “guided by” India in its foreign policy.

Recently, after days of rising Sino-Indian tensions at the trijunction, the People’s Liberation Army on June 16 brought in heavy earth-moving equipment and began building a road through Bhutan’s Doklam Plateau, which China claims, including Sinicizing its name as Donglong. Indian troops intervened, leading to scuffles with PLA soldiers, with the ongoing standoff halting work at the 3,000-meter-high construction site.

Significantly, the standoff did not become public until June 26 when China released a complaint against India, just as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was about to begin discussions with U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House. The statement — timed to cast a shadow over the Modi-Trump discussions and to remind Modi of the costs Beijing could impose on India for his pro-U.S. tilt — presented China as the victim by alleging that Indian troops had “intruded” into “China’s Donglong region” and halted a legitimate construction activity. It demanded India withdraw its troops or face retaliation.

This was followed by a frenzied Chinese public-relations blitzkrieg against India designed to obfuscate the real issue — the PLA’s encroachment on Bhutanese territory. Chinese officials and state media fulminated against India over the troop standoff but shied away from even mentioning Bhutan.

It was only after Bhutan’s ambassador to India publicly revealed on June 28 that his country had protested the PLA’s violation of its territorial sovereignty and demanded a return to status quo ante that Beijing finally acknowledged the involvement of a third party in the dispute. The fact that an insecure and apprehensive Bhutan (which has no diplomatic relations with China) took eight days to make public its protest to Beijing played into China’s hands.

CHINA PILES ON THE PRESSURE
The Chinese attacks on India for halting the road construction, meanwhile, are continuing. For example, the Chinese defense ministry spokesperson, alluding to India’s defeat in the 1962 war with China, asked the Indian army on June 29 to “learn from historical lessons” and to stop “clamoring for war.” The Indian defense minister, in response, said the India of today was different from the one in 1962.

The same trijunction was the scene of heavy Sino-Indian military clashes in 1967, barely five years after China’s 1962 trans-Himalayan invasion led to major Indian reverses. But unlike in 1962, the Chinese side suffered far heavier casualties in the 1967 clashes, concentrated at Nathu-la and Cho-la.

Today, to mount pressure on India, China has cut off Indian pilgrims’ historical access to a mountain-and-lake site in Tibet that is sacred to four faiths: Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and the indigenous religion of Tibet, Bon. While Manasarovar is the world’s highest freshwater lake at 4,557 meters above sea level, Mount Kailash — the world’s legendary center — is worshipped by believers as the abode of the planet’s father and mother, the gods Shiva and Uma, and as the place where Lord Buddha manifested himself in his super-bliss form. Four important rivers of Asia, including the Indus and the Brahmaputra, originate from around this duo.

By arbitrarily halting the pilgrimages, Beijing is reminding New Delhi to review its Tibet policy. India needs to subtly reopen Tibet as an outstanding issue in order to fend off Chinese pressure. After all, China lays claim to Indian and Bhutanese territories on the basis of alleged Tibetan (not Han Chinese) links to them historically. India must start to question China’s purportedly historical claim to Tibet itself.

More broadly, by waging stealth wars to accomplish political and military objectives, China is turning into a principle source of strategic instability in Asia. The stealth wars include constructing a dispute and then setting in motion a jurisdictional creep through a steady increase in the frequency and duration of Chinese incursions — all with the intent of either establishing military control over a coveted area or pressuring the opponent to cut a deal on its terms.

This strategy of territorial creep is based not on chess, which is centered on securing a decisive victory, but on the ancient Chinese game of Go, aimed at steadily making incremental gains by outwitting the opponent through unrelenting attacks on its weak points.

China has long camouflaged offense as defense, in keeping with the ancient theorist Sun Tzu’s advice that all warfare is “based on deception.” Still, the fact that the world’s fourth largest country in area, after Russia, Canada and the United States, is seeking to nibble away at the territory of a tiny nation speaks volumes about China’s aggressive strategy of expansion.

Longtime Japan Times contributor Brahma Chellaney is a geostrategist and the author of nine books.

[SSridhar]

Delhi has ‘ulterior motives’, asserts Beijing - PTI

China said on Friday that “ulterior motives” prompted India to include the tri-junction with Bhutan in the Sikkim stand-off and asserted that New Delhi’s acceptance of the 1890 Sino-British treaty on the boundaries in the area should not change with the passage of time.

“The so-called tri-junction point as the name implies is a point instead of a line or an area,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told a media briefing here.

Asked about India’s assertion that China is violating the agreement reached by the Special Representatives on the boundary in 2012 over the tri-junction, Mr. Geng said the road being built by China had nothing to do with it. {China would dismiss incontrovertible proofs and accusations against it contemptuously and peremptorily but harangue about its own imaginary entitlements endlessly. China is yet to wake up from its Song,Yuan,Ming, Qing imperial dynasties and how their Emperors behaved. Whatever it did internally or however it rules its people, it is an Imperial Power externally }

‘Trespass by India’

Mr. Geng said the convention between Great Britain and China relating to Sikkim in 1890 stated that the Sikkim section of the boundary commences from the east of Mount Gipmochi.

“The illegal trespass by the Indian troops took place at the Sikkim section of the India-China boundary, 2,000 metres away from the Mount Gipmochi,” he said. The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson asserted that the issue had “nothing to do with the tri-junction point” and China had not breached the 2012 agreement.

Asked to provide exact coordinates of the tri-junction, he said he had no information on it. Mr. Geng also sought to justify China’s road building, saying that it was not part of the Doklam area.

Questions India’s stand

He questioned India’s stand that Doklam is part of the strategic tri-junction also known as the Chicken’s Neck, which is the key corridor connecting India with its north-eastern States. “In disregard of the boundary convention, the Indian side takes entire Doklam area as part of the tri-junction. That is out of ulterior motives,” Mr. Geng said.

[Deans]

For a country that worships Sun Tzu and believes in a patient long term strategy, I'm surprised by the Chinese handling of this situation.
The Chinese media has been unusually harsh in its rhetoric, which has pushed China into a corner where it cannot leave without losing face. The media is instructed by the same organisation that loses face if they withdraw.

Eleven's imperial ambitions have also seen China push against too many countries simultaneously. Apart from the South China sea, there is fresh tension with Japan (record number of PLAAF aircraft intercepted by the Japs), HK protests have got publicity. Not only is nothing being done to rein in NoKo,by Dear Fat boy is launching a record number of missiles, almost daring the US to retaliate, while China has created a fresh dispute by opposing THAAD.
Its only Trump's mishandling of the relationship with Russia that has seen Eleven and Putin on the same page for now - else the Chinese would have pissed off virtually all their neighbors at the same time. Disquiet about OBOR is also growing across all the beneficary countries. All this in the backdrop of a worsening economic, where the landing for the Ponzi scheme economy will be harder, the longer tough decisions are postponed.

Is it possible that there is a faction in the CCP Politburo, or in the PLA, or both that does not want to see Eleven's plans fructify ? They are possibly scared of a Stalin style purge. The crusade against corruption was a handy tool for Eleven to complete phase 1 of his purge by getting rid of
possible opponents on grounds of corruption.

[SSridhar]

Iyersan, always post with the URL.

[arun]

Asia’s colossus threatens a tiny state

Bhutan, one of the world’s smallest nations, has protested that the Asian colossus, China, is chipping away at its territory by building a strategic highway near the Tibet-India-Bhutan trijunction in the Himalayas. Bhutan has security arrangements with India, and the construction has triggered a tense standoff between Chinese and Indian troops at the trijunction, with the Chinese state media warning of the possibility of war.

................{Rest Snipped}..................

Link to the Brahma Chellaney article in Japan Times:

Asia’s colossus threatens a tiny state

[SSridhar]

China hid many facts on Doklam issue while making its border claims: Expert Claude Arpi - Saibal Dasgupta, ToI

China has hidden the fact that the government of Tibet did not sign the very document, the Sikkim-Tibet treaty of 1890, which Beijing is showing to support its claim over the disputed Doklam plateau.

The ongoing border stand-off+ was triggered after Chinese troops started building a road in Doklam, which is also claimed by Bhutan, on June 16.

Leave aside 1890, China did not agree to a treaty on the Bhutan-Tibet and Sikkim-Tibet borders until as late as 1960. This was another fact that China did not mention when it went about using the 1980 1890 document as the basis of its claim over Doklam, analysts said.

"The Tibetan Government refused to acknowledge the 1890 Convention because they were not informed or made a party to it," Claude Arpi, historian, and Tibetologist told TOI.

Tibetan and British troops had clashed a couple of years before, and this could be the reason why the Tibetan government did not acknowledge the treaty, Arpi said.

China is pretending that there was no need to get the treaty approved by the Tibetan government because the central government had sent its representative to sign it along with British officials.

But this is not true because the Chinese government did not have control over Tibet, and was merely represented by a resident in 1890.

In fact, the British government sent the Younghusband expedition into Tibet in 1904 because of the Tibetan government's refusal to accept the treaty, he said.

China has remained silent about the fact that the disputed area remained unresolved until 1960, and continues to be a bone of contention between Beijing and Bhutan.

"In 1960, during the Official's Negotiations, China refused to discuss the Bhutan-Tibet border and the Sikkim-Tibet border," Arpi said.

Chinese foreign ministry has produced partial excerpts from a letter by former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to show that the Indian government had accepted the 1890 treaty covering areas that include Doklam.

But the Chinese foreign ministry hid the fact that the tri-junction between India, Bhutan and China had not been resolved during Nehru's time. India is worried that Chinese road building is too close to the tri-junction, and would harm future efforts to resolve this part of the border.

"Nehru acknowledged the 1890 treaty only as far as the Northern border of Sikkim is concerned.

The tri-junction has never been agreed upon," Arpi said, adding, "The proof is that it (the issue) was discussed (between India and China) in 2012".

The tri-junction issue was also discussed by special representatives of the two countries, who agreed that there should be no change of status quo on the trijunction until a final solution is found.

[Iyersan]

BREAKING NEWS: Chinese embassy issue notice to Chinese nationals in India
"pay close attention to personal safety and security situation "
CNN news18

[arun]

Excerpt from PRC Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang's Regular Press Conference on July 6, 2017 on our border problem with the PRC:

Q: Do you have any update on President Xi Jinping’s schedule at the G20 Summit regarding his bilateral meetings? Will he meet with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi? When will the informal BRICS leaders’ meeting take place?

A: We will release the information on President Xi Jinping’s schedule of bilateral meetings on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in a timely manner once we have it.

I have no information at hand about whether the leaders of China and India will meet during the G20 Summit. I need to point out that these days the Indian troops illegally crossed the Sikkim section of the China-India boundary into China’s territory and obstructed China’s normal activities in the Doklam area. This move has infringed upon China’s territorial sovereignty and undermined the political basis and overall atmosphere of bilateral relations. We demand that the Indian side respect the provisions in the boundary convention and China’s territorial sovereignty, immediately pull the troops that have crossed the boundary back to its own side, and uphold peace and tranquility of the border areas. It is the precondition for any meaningful dialogue between the two sides.

As far as I know, the informal BRICS leaders’ meeting will be held on July 7 local time.

Q: The Indian Minister of State for Defence said that there should be a diplomatic solution to the current stand-off between the troops at the Sikkim section, which is what the Indian side wants. Moreover, the Chinese troops should recover the status quo, stay where they were earlier, instead of “intruding into” Bhutanese “territory”. This is India’s security concern and stand. Do you have any response to this?

A: We have noted the relevant remarks by the Indian side. We have repeatedly said the Indian troops this time illegally crossed the delimited Sikkim section of the China-India boundary mutually recognized by the two sides. That is essentially different from the previous border frictions and stand-offs between the two border troops in undefined areas. India’s trespass into China’s territory has changed the status quo which can only be recovered when the Indian side withdraws.

China has the will to peacefully resolve the problem through diplomatic means and cherishes peace and tranquility in the border areas, but the precondition for all this is the unconditional withdrawal of the Indian personnel who have illegally crossed the boundary.

As to this Indian official’s remarks on China’s entry into the so-called Bhutanese “territory”, we have stated on many occasions that Doklam has always been part of China's territory and under China's effective jurisdiction without disputes. China and Bhutan have held 24 rounds of boundary talks since they were launched in the 1980s. Though the boundary is yet to be demarcated officially, the two sides have basic consensus on the situation on the ground in the border areas and the boundary alignment. China has been strictly observing the relevant agreement between China and Bhutan. China’s activities in this area have not breached any agreement or undermined the status quo.

In fact, it is the Indian side who takes “protecting Bhutan” as an excuse to justify its boundary-crossing and entry into China and makes an issue of the Doklam area so as to hold back the China-Bhutan boundary negotiation. We once again urge the Indian side to immediately pull all of the troops that have crossed the boundary back to its own side before the situation gets worse with more serious consequences.

Q: Recently, the Ministry of External Affairs of India accused China of posing security risks to India by constructing roads. What is the response of the Chinese side?

A: I am wondering on what ground does the Indian side base its accusation.. The Chinese side builds roads on its own territory, which is a justified and legitimate action by a sovereign state.

The Indian side, under the pretext of the so-called “security concerns”, overstepped the defined boundary and entered its neighbor’s territory. Anyone who knows the basic principles of international relations should understand that whatever the Indian side is up to following the trespass, it is not acceptable to any sovereign state, and it is not the proper way for China and India to get along with each other as neighbors, either. It is absurd to say that China’s road construction poses risks to India’s security. Over the past few decades, it is India that has built many facilities, deployed a large number of troops and even built such military installations as fortifications riding or overstepping the border line, which has changed the status quo of the border areas. I am wondering if the Indian side has ever taken into account the security concerns of the Chinese side while doing this.

The Indian side provoked this incident with a clear aim. Under the pretext of the so-called “security concerns” and “protecting Bhutan”, the Indian side flagrantly overstepped the Sikkim section defined by the mutually recognized Convention Between Great Britain and China Relating to Sikkim and Tibet (1890) and entered into the Doklam region which is China’s territory without dispute so as to stir up disputes over the Doklam region and hinder and hold back the negotiation over border areas between two sovereign states, namely, China and Bhutan. We believe more and more people will come around to this.

PRC MOFA Website:


Clicky

[arun]

Excerpt from PRC Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang's Regular Press Conference on July 7, 2017 on our border problem with the PRC:

Q: First, the Malabar naval exercises between India, the US and Japan will start on July 9 in the Bay of Bengal, which will be the biggest of its kind so far. What are your comments on that? Second, there was a common understanding between the Chinese and Indian special representatives on boundary affairs in 2012 that the tri-junction would only be finalized after consultation with Bhutan. This suggests the recognition of disputes over the tri-junction. How do you comment to that?

A: On your first question, we have stated on many occasions that we have no objection to the development of normal relations and cooperation between countries. We hope such relations and cooperation are not targeted at a third party and are conducive to regional peace and stability.

Regarding your question on the tri-junction, we have given the answer previously and I will reiterate our stance. Just as its name implies, the tri-junction is a point rather than a line or an area. The Convention Between Great Britain and China Relating to Sikkim and Tibet (1890) clearly stipulates that the Sikkim section of the China-India boundary commences at Mount Gipmochi in the east. The illegal trespass by the Indian troops took place at the Sikkim section of the China-India boundary over 2000 meters away from Mount Gipmochi and has nothing to do with the tri-junction. The Indian side, in disregard of the boundary convention, takes the whole Doklam area as part of the tri-junction. This is obviously an attempt out of ulterior motives. The Indian side tries to introduce the concept of tri-junction into this incident and equate that point with an area. They are misleading the public.

Q: You have been referring on and off about the Convention Between Great Britain and China Relating to Sikkim and Tibet (1890), does that cover the Doklam area or the tri-junction?

A: The tri-junction is a point rather than a line or an area. The Indian side who attempts to equate a point with an area is of ulterior motives.

The Convention Between Great Britain and China Relating to Sikkim and Tibet (1890) explicitly stipulates that the boundary between Sikkim and Tibet commences at Mount Gipmochi in the East and follows the water-parting to the point where it meets Nepal's territory in the West. This, I believe, is clear.

Q: The status quo and the situation at the China-India boundary have changed after the 1962 war, so it does not make any sense talking about an agreement that was made when India was under British rule. Has the Indian side ever recognized after 1962 that the Sikkim section was delimited?

A: The Indian government has stated unequivocally their recognition of the validity of the 1890 Convention many times. The boundary between Sikkim and Tibet was delimited by that convention. Once signed, the convention's legality and validity shall not be affected by the change of regime or state system, and still less the certain point of time you mentioned.

Follow-up: My question is has there been any agreement between the two sides in this area after 1962?

A: As I said, there is no point mentioning 1962. Once signed, the boundary convention's legality and validity shall not be affected by the change of regime and the passing of time.

PRC MOFA Website:

Clicky

[Iyersan]

^^^ Do they have 1 everyday

[yensoy]

I composited wikimapia and google maps in the trijunction area. The Chinese seem to be in possession of a pretty large chunk of Bhutanese territory, moving the tri-junction Southwards by quite a distance. I think as the Indian releases indicated, this is the area of contention, not the disputed area to the north with no access from India.

Ok here we go - the winding mountain road is constructed by China well within Bhutanese claimed territory south of what should be the Tri-junction.

[arun]

Excerpt from PRC Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang's Regular Press Conference on July 5, 2017 on our border problem with the PRC:

Q: Previously you mentioned that the Indian side explicitly recognized on many occasions that the Sikkim section of the China-India boundary had been delimited. Do you have additional evidence apart from Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's letter to Premier Zhou Enlai?

A: Since the trespass by the Indian troops, we have stated China's stern stance many times. The fact is that the Sikkim section of the China-India boundary had been delimited by the Convention Between Great Britain and China Relating to Sikkim and Tibet (1890). Since the independence of India, the Indian government has repeatedly confirmed this fact.

Since you asked for additional evidence, I can offer you more: In the note it sent to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on February 12, 1960, the Indian Embassy in China said, "the Government of India welcomes the explanation given in the Chinese note relating to the boundary with Sikkim and Bhutan on the one side and Tibet on the other. The note states that the boundary between Sikkim and Tibet of China has long been formally delimited, and that there is neither any discrepancy on the maps nor dispute in practice. The Government of India would like to add that this boundary has also been demarcated on the ground." These contents in that note were all written down in black and white.

What I want to point out is that the relevant actions of the Indian side has violated the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and trampled on international law and the norms governing international relations. It is known to all that in the 1950s, China, India and Myanmar jointly initiated the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence of "mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful co-existence". But to the astonishment of the international community, by illegally crossing into other's territory, India this time trampled the basic norms governing international relations championed by itself. If it fails to correct its mistake in a timely manner, how is it supposed to win the trust of its neighbors or play a bigger role in international affairs?

We once again urge the Indian side to abide by the provisions of the boundary convention, respect China's territorial sovereignty, immediately pull all of the troops that have crossed the boundary back to its own side and properly settle this incident as soon as possible.

Q: Will the Chinese government issue any security alert to Chinese citizens who work and live in India?

A: The Chinese government highly values the security and legal interests and rights of the overseas Chinese nationals. We will issue relevant security alert in accordance with the security situation in relevant country.

Q: You referred to the letter from Prime Minister Nehru in 1959 endorsing the 1890 convention. In the same letter, Prime Minister Nehru also wrote that the Chinese maps show sizable areas of Bhutan as part of Tibet. He said the rectification of errors in Chinese maps regarding the boundary of Bhutan and Tibet has to be discussed between China and India. What is China's comment on that? In addition, Bhutan has also lodged a protest with China about Doklam area. Are there any talks going on between China and Bhutan in this regard?

A: I am not aware of the specifics you mentioned about that particular letter and I need to verify them.

As to the boundary negotiation between China and Bhutan, we have repeatedly stated that Doklam has always been part of China's territory and under China's effective jurisdiction without disputes. China and Bhutan have held 24 rounds of boundary negotiations since they launched such talks in the 1980s. Though the boundary is yet to be demarcated officially, the two sides have basic consensus on the situation on the ground in the border areas and the boundary alignment. There is no disagreement on the fact that Doklam belongs to China.

China has strictly observed the agreement between the two sides all along. The status quo of the boundary in the Doklam area is clear-cut, and the area has always been under China's effective jurisdiction. There is no breach of agreement or damage to status quo by the Chinese side, which I believe is clear to the Bhutanese side.

China stands ready to work with the Bhutanese side to settle the boundary question through friendly negotiation without external interference and uphold peace and tranquility in the border areas.

Q: When giving an interview to the Indian media, the Chinese ambassador to India said that peaceful settlement is only possible when the Indian troops withdraw unconditionally. What's your comment on this?

A: We demand that the Indian side pull back the troops that crossed the boundary and create necessary conditions for the recovery of peace and tranquility in relevant areas. Chinese Ambassador to India Luo Zhaohui has explicitly expressed China's stance and requirement.

Q:The Indian army spokesperson was cited by the Indian media as saying that the stand-off this time is not the longest since 1962. The Chinese and Indian militaries manage their relations very well. Moreover, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said last month that not a single bullet has been fired in 40 years despite the Sino-Indian border disputes. How do you comment on that? Do you think the incident this time will have a serious bearing on China-India relations?

A: On relevant remarks by the Indian side, I would like to point out that the settlement of the boundary question serves the fundamental interests of the two countries and is the strategic goal the two sides have been striving for. In fact, China and India have been exploring means to settle the boundary question through the mechanism of special representatives, while jointly taking measures to uphold peace and tranquility in the border areas.

This time the Indian troops illegally crossed the delimited Sikkim section of the China-India boundary into the Chinese side. It is very serious in nature. China has lodged stern representations with the Indian side through diplomatic and border defense meeting channels. By far, the Indian troops still stay on China's territory, and the incident is yet to be resolved. China reiterates again that India should immediately pull all of the troops that have crossed the boundary back to its own side. It is the precondition and basis to settle the current incident before it gets worse and has more serious consequences.

We have noted that the Indian side stated many times previously that it highly values China-India relations and wishes to enlarge our mutual benefits and properly handle differences. We demand that the Indian side pull all of the troops that have illegally crossed the boundary back to its own side and correct its mistake with concrete actions, with a view to demonstrating sincerity for resolving the boundary question and developing China-India relations, and creating necessary atmosphere and conditions for the normal development of the bilateral relations.

Q: The boundary talks between India and China commenced after the 1962 war at the China-India border, or more exactly, after Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's visit to China in 1988. Do you have any post-1962 document which proves that India recognizes Doklam as part of China's territory?

A: We have repeatedly said that the Sikkim section of the China-India boundary has been clearly delimited by the Convention Between Great Britain and China Relating to Sikkim and Tibet (1890). This convention is recognized by both China and India, and the boundary at the Sikkim section has been delimited. This time the Indian side crossed the delimited boundary at the Sikkim section, which is a very serious incident in nature.

China has been in contact with India for the settlement of the boundary question through the meeting mechanism of the special representatives. But what happened this time goes against the spirit upheld by the mechanism and is inconsistent with the previous efforts the two sides have made. We again urge India to withdraw the border troops to the Indian side of the boundary and demonstrate the sincerity to resolve the boundary question and develop China-India relations with concrete actions.

Q: Is there any specific mention of the tri-junction in the document in which India recognizes China's sovereign over the Doklam area? Is the Doklam area located in the tri-junction?

A: On the tri-junction, the 1890 Convention stipulates that the Sikkim section of the China-India boundary commences at Mount Gipmochi in the east. The illegal trespass by the Indian troops took place at the Sikkim section of the China-India boundary over 2000 meters away from Mount Gipmochi and has nothing to do with the tri-junction. The Indian side, in disregard of the boundary convention, takes the whole Doklam area as part of the tri-junction. This is obviously an attempt to confuse the public out of ulterior motives.

PRC MOFA:

Clicky

[Iyersan]

I composited wikimapia and google maps in the trijunction area. The Chinese seem to be in possession of a pretty large chunk of Bhutanese territory, moving the tri-junction Southwards by quite a distance. I think as the Indian releases indicated, this is the area of contention, not the disputed area to the north with no access from India.

Ok here we go - the winding mountain road is constructed by China well within Bhutanese claimed territory south of what should be the Tri-junction.

This means Chinese have already eaten Bhutan territory and have reached india

[Iyersan]

BREAKING NEWS: Chinese embassy issue notice to Chinese nationals in India
"pay close attention to personal safety and security situation "
CNN news18

Republic TV also showing the above. Can someone explain why this is coming?

[Iyersan]

BREAKING NEWS: Chinese embassy issue notice to Chinese nationals in India
"pay close attention to personal safety and security situation "
CNN news18

Republic TV also showing the above. Can someone explain why this is coming?

http://www.firstpost.com/india/sikkim-s ... 90181.html

Sikkim standoff: China issues safety advisory to citizens in India, cautions against unnecessary travel
Beijing: China has issued a safety advisory to its citizens travelling to and living in India over the worsening border row between the two countries.

"The (Chinese) embassy in India has issued a safety advisory to its people asking them to pay attention to their safety and avoid unnecessary travel," a Chinese government official told IANS

The advisory was issued on 7 July and is for a month. No reason was given for issuing such a notice.

"They have been asked to contact local police or the Chinese embassy in Delhi," the official added.

The advisory comes as Indian and Chinese troops have been engaged in a stand-off in Doklam region in Sikkim sector since mid June, which has led to marked unease in ties.

Last week, the Chinese foreign ministry said depending on the security situation China could issue a travel alert to its citizens visiting India.

According to the advisory, Chinese living in India need to pay attention to the local security situation.

It says they need to carry personal identification and inform their family, colleagues, and friends in advance if travelling out of home. It also asks them to strictly comply with Indian laws and regulations and respect local and religious customs.

"The Chinese government attaches great importance to the safety and lawful rights of its citizens," Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang had said last week.

"In accordance with the security condition of the relevant country, we will decide whether or not to issue a travel alert," Geng had said, answering a question if China will issue any advisory.


Published Date: Jul 08, 2017 02:51 pm | Updated Date: Jul 08, 2017 02:51 pm

[yensoy]

Ok here we go - the winding mountain road is constructed by China well within Bhutanese claimed territory south of what should be the Tri-junction.

This means Chinese have already eaten Bhutan territory and have reached india

Precisely but this road has been constructed some time ago. The reference to 2km of Mt Gimpochi means that the action happened in this area only.

[schinnas]

If the current situation escalates into an armed conflict, Cheen needs to be pushed back fully outside of Bhutanese area and all permanent and temporary structures such as roads or bridges fully destroyed.

[Iyersan]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmourd ... 48f39c1af7
Vietnam And India To Spoil China's South China Sea Ambitions

[pankajs]

This means Chinese have already eaten Bhutan territory and have reached india

Precisely but this road has been constructed some time ago. The reference to 2km of Mt Gimpochi means that the action happened in this area only.

There are 2 areas under *dispute* to the west of Bhutan, the trijunction and the Doklam plateau. Trijunction is a side show while the current dispute centers on the Doklam plateau. If we can control the Doklam area we control the trijunction too. It is like talking of the Siachen when the actual action is on the saltoro ridge.

WRT the Chinese agression, there are usually 3 phases. The claim, the infra build and the control. Just focusing on the Doklam area, the Chinese claim that area, they have built some kind of a road through it BUT they do not control the area. So in that sense they have NOT eaten Doklam and that makes their control of the Bhutanese area at the trijunction very diecy.

[Iyersan]

Is the second front being opened along the LoC with pak

[Iyersan]

https://thewire.in/155657/lobsang-sanga ... dia-china/
Tibet Card’ Added to India-China Border Mix as Tibetan Flag Is Hoisted at Pang Gong Lake

Coming amid the ongoing stand-off between India and China in Doklam, the hoisting of the Tibetan flag on Indian territory could be seen as political activity.


New Delhi: Even as the stand-off between Indian and Chinese soldiers continued in one part of the Himalayas, Lobsang Sangay, head of the Tibetan government-in-exile, unfurled the Tibetan national flag on the shores of Pang Gong lake in Ladakh.

The lake, located at over 14,000 feet, sits astride India and China, with the Line of Actual Control passing through it.

Speaking to The Wire, Sonam Norbu Dagpo, spokesperson of the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA), said that this was the first time that the independent Tibet flag had been unfurled by the head of the government-in-exile at that important location.

“This is the first visit by the CTA president to Ladakh and, therefore, the first time that the national flag has been unfurled near the lake,” he said.

Dagpo pointed out that the location has special meaning for the Tibetan community. “As you know, half the lake is in India, and half the Tibet,” he added. Consequently, he said that the hoisting of the national flag has “political and personal significance”.

When asked if any go-ahead signal was taken from authorities, Dagpo asserted, “I don’t think any permission is required to hoist the Tibetan national flag”.

Sangay was in Ladakh on the invitation of the Ladakhi community to celebrate the birthday of the Dalai Lama on July 6, Dagpo added.

According to a report on the lake shore ceremony published on the CTA website, Sangay had a brief audience with the Dalai Lama before leaving for the lake on the morning of July 5.

The report noted that Sangay poured “blessed grains” received from the Dalai Lama into the lake in the hope that “these grains will reach Tibet and bless Tibetans inside Tibet as well”.

“Physically, I may be standing just a few meters from Tibet today. However, in terms of political freedom and views, I am still far away from the situation inside Tibet,” Sangay said, according to the report.

Speaking to The Wire, a former MEA secretary, R.S. Kalha said, “The unfurling of the Tibetan flag is a political act, especially at this time”.

For the last 22 days, Indian and Chinese soldiers have been watching each other warily on a clearing called the ‘Turning Point’ in Doklam. Indian soldiers had stopped Chinese soldiers from constructing a road within Bhutanese territory, which would have serious security implications for the tri-junction and the ‘chicken neck’ Siliguri corridor.

China has been on a media blitzkrieg claiming that India violated a 1890 treaty and asserting that Indian soldiers were on Chinese territory. India and Bhutan have both said that China had changed the status-quo by building a road and asked it to return to the previous position.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping had a five-minute conversation on Friday on the sidelines of a meeting of BRICS leaders gathered in Hamburg for the G20 summit. However, no details were given of the “wide range of issues” discussed.

Meanwhile, even as the two leaders met in Hamburg, the Chinese embassy in India issued an advisory for its nationals to “pay close attention to personal safety”.

Observer Research Foundation’s Manoj Joshi agreed that the flag hoisting by Sangay “assumes importance due to the timing”. “This is a very significant gesture, given that it has happened for the first time at this location which has emotional and political symbolism.”

Both Kalha and Joshi pointed out that the flag was hoisted on Indian territory, which could be interpreted as political activity.

A former Indian diplomat, who has been a practitioner in India-China bilateral ties, claimed that it was unlikely that India would have “encouraged” Sangay to go to the lake. “So far, I do not see any signs of the Indian government interested in escalating the issue,” said the diplomat, who did not want to be named. He also pointed to the Indian statement on the Doklam stand-off, which he said was “very measured and sober”.

Joshi asserted that the NDA government has a history of trying to play up the Tibet issue. “Ever since this government took office, it has given more visibility to the Tibetan cause, right from swearing-in day. This has not gone unnoticed in Beijing,” he said.

When Modi was sworn in as prime minister, Sangay was among the special invitees in the audience, sitting right next to then Uttar Pradesh chief minister Akhilesh Yadav. Sangay’s presence led to speculation of new government policy on Tibet. Sangay’s presence didn’t go unnoticed, with China lodging a protest. A few months later, Modi and Xi were sitting together on a swing alongside the river Sabarmati – but that was probably the biggest high in India-China bilateral relations till now.

In April 2016, India allowed a US-based Chinese dissident organisation to organise a seminar of pro-democracy activists in Dharamshala, but later cancelled the visa of an Uighur activist on the grounds that he gave wrong information in his visa application. The visas of three other participants to the conference were also cancelled. However, the seminar went ahead, but without the media being allowed in.

The permission for the conference had come in the wake of China putting on hold – yet again – the listing of Jaish-e-Mohammed chief Maulana Masood Azhar by the 1267 Al-Qaida and Taliban sanctions committee of the UN Security Council.

In December 2016, China warned India to respect Beijing’s “core interests” after Dalai Lama visited Rashtrapati Bhawan to attend a conference of Nobel laureates and shared the dais with the Indian president. This was the first contact between the Tibetan spiritual leader and the head of the Indian state in decades. India had played down the incident, stating that Dalai Lama had been invited for a “non-political event”.

A few months earlier in October 2016, Beijing had also protested the first ever visit by an US ambassador to India to Arunachal Pradesh.

This year, China was again upset by the visit of the Dalai Lama to Arunachal Pradesh. The language used by the Chinese foreign ministry on Dalai Lama’s visit was so sharp that India issued a list of previous trips of the Tibetan spiritual leader to the north-eastern state, which is claimed by China. The foreign ministry spokesperson also clarified that there was a “no change” in Indian government’s policy towards China’s Tibet or to the boundary question.

[nirav]

Excellent !
The Chinese will soon realise the big hole they've dug for themselves by talking about encouraging separatism in Sikkim.

[rsingh]

"The Chinese government attaches great importance to the safety and lawful rights of its citizens," Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang had said last week.

wow. One wonder if those rights are provided at home. Chinese enjoy more freedom in India then they do in China.
BTW DL was in Ladakh.

[Singha]

burning of chinese flags and effigies of their tyrant leaders could be organized in city chowks...

let the indian public show its justified anger

[rsingh]

burning of chinese flags and effigies of their tyrant leaders could be organized in city chowks...

let the indian public show its justified anger

Or as I mentioned earlier............let them eat Dhokla while sitting on dharna near Chinese embassy. BTW they have the biggest compound in area.

[nirav]

burning of chinese flags and effigies of their tyrant leaders could be organized in city chowks...

let the indian public show its justified anger

Or as I mentioned earlier............let them eat Dhokla while sitting on dharna near Chinese embassy. BTW they have the biggest compound in area.

I doubt availability of dhoklas to the Chinese in the doklam area.

[Iyersan]

Why a safety advisory. Chinese are increasing diplomatic pressure. Please discuss opinions. Significant development

[rsingh]

Or as I mentioned earlier............let them eat Dhokla while sitting on dharna near Chinese embassy. BTW they have the biggest compound in area.

I doubt availability of dhoklas to the Chinese in the doklam area.

That is pure dhoklabazi ( please to enter this in BRF dictionary, meaning trying to steal something from neighbour and crying foul play when given danda in backside)

[rsingh]

Why a safety advisory. Chinese are increasing diplomatic pressure. Please discuss opinions. Significant development

How is that?
BTW , Any chance of Russia trying to mediate (asked by China to save its H&D)?

[nirav]

The way the Chinese are setting up the situation, it looks ripe for a border clash.
We might end up having casualties because of not firing first shots.
Our strength in the area in question ensures that we will more than give it back to the conscripts.

The Chinese exit would be a unilateral ceasefire and retreat from the self created fiasco.

Or,
They could simply retreat after a few more weeks of sabre rattling and show their domestic audience their own magnanimity.

A Chinese loss of face is guaranteed whichever way the situation develops.

rsingh ji -