→Criticism: SCMP is a well-known, notable source and the whole article is an opinion, please provide convincible reason. |
|||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
Indian scholar [[Srinath Raghavan]] stated that China was being disingenuous in acting as if the Indian troops entered Chinese territory crossing a settled international boundary. Not only was China yet to reach a border agreement with Bhutan, after 24 rounds of negotiations, but, specifically with respect to Doklam, it agreed with India in 2012 'both on the "basis of the alignment" and on the need to fix the tri-junction in consultation with Bhutan'. |
Indian scholar [[Srinath Raghavan]] stated that China was being disingenuous in acting as if the Indian troops entered Chinese territory crossing a settled international boundary. Not only was China yet to reach a border agreement with Bhutan, after 24 rounds of negotiations, but, specifically with respect to Doklam, it agreed with India in 2012 'both on the "basis of the alignment" and on the need to fix the tri-junction in consultation with Bhutan'. |
||
{{quote|"There are only three facts that matter to the current situation. First, China’s construction of a road in violation of an understanding with Bhutan to maintain status quo. Second, China’s attempt to create facts on the ground about the location of the tri-junction. Third, the presence of Indian troops on territory disputed between Bhutan and China. Restoration of status quo ante will require all sides to undo their actions."<ref>Srinath Raghavan, [http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/kfpkmisQLSnGho2e2oo2rO/China-is-wrong-on-SikkimTibet-boundary.html China is wrong on Sikkim-Tibet boundary], livemint, 7 August 2017.</ref>}} |
{{quote|"There are only three facts that matter to the current situation. First, China’s construction of a road in violation of an understanding with Bhutan to maintain status quo. Second, China’s attempt to create facts on the ground about the location of the tri-junction. Third, the presence of Indian troops on territory disputed between Bhutan and China. Restoration of status quo ante will require all sides to undo their actions."<ref>Srinath Raghavan, [http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/kfpkmisQLSnGho2e2oo2rO/China-is-wrong-on-SikkimTibet-boundary.html China is wrong on Sikkim-Tibet boundary], livemint, 7 August 2017.</ref>}} |
||
An article from [[South China Morning Post]] wrote that India’s control over Bhutan can be seen in three aspects: the [[economy]], [[military]] and [[diplomacy]]. |
|||
{{quote|"On the economic front, India has control over Bhutan’s important income source, which is exports in [[hydroelectric power]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.firstpost.com/world/ne-terror-china-whats-on-pm-modis-bhutan-trip-agenda-1571127.html|title=NE terror, China: What's on PM Modi's Bhutan trip agenda?|date=15 June 2014|website=[[Firstpost]]|accessdate=11 August 2017}}</ref> On the military front, Bhutan’s armed forces are only about 10,000-strong and they receive Indian military training. Bhutan does not maintain formal diplomatic relations with China and the rest of the [[UN Security Council]]’s permanent members."<ref>[http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2106074/india-must-stop-trampling-bhutans-sovereignty India must stop trampling on Bhutan’s sovereignty], SCMP, 2017-08-09</ref>}} |
|||
Chinese historian Li Woteng stated that according to India's statement, India's action of "crossing the border" was coordinated with the Bhutanese government. If so, its action has Bhutan's approval. Therefore, China cannot hold that India's action is unreasonable as long as Bhutan is not subject to Indian coercion.<ref name=Woteng>Li Woteng, [https://theinitium.com/article/20170810-opinion-lai-china-india/ The ins and outs of the Sino - Indian border dispute], The Initium, 2017-08-10</ref> |
Chinese historian Li Woteng stated that according to India's statement, India's action of "crossing the border" was coordinated with the Bhutanese government. If so, its action has Bhutan's approval. Therefore, China cannot hold that India's action is unreasonable as long as Bhutan is not subject to Indian coercion.<ref name=Woteng>Li Woteng, [https://theinitium.com/article/20170810-opinion-lai-china-india/ The ins and outs of the Sino - Indian border dispute], The Initium, 2017-08-10</ref> |
Revision as of 17:33, 11 August 2017
The 2017 China India border standoff refers to the military border standoff between the Indian armed forces and the People's Liberation Army of China over construction of a road in Doklam (known as Donglang in China). The standoff started on 16 June 2017 when Chinese troops with construction vehicles and road-building equipment began moving south into Doklam, a territory which India and Bhutan considers as Bhutanese territory.[1][2] On June 18, 2017, around 270 Indian troops, with weapons and two bulldozers, entered Doklam to stop the Chinese troops from constructing the road.[3]
Background
Unlike China and Bhutan, India does not claim Doklam, but supports Bhutan's claim.[4][5]
Doklam is an area disputed between China and Bhutan located near their tri junction with India.[6][7] As per Chinese claims, Doklam is located in the Xigaze area of Tibet, bordering the state of Sikkim[8]
In 1949, Bhutan signed a treaty with India giving allowance to India to guide its diplomatic and defense affairs. In 2007, a new treaty between the two countries invalided the allowance.[9]
Negotiation
On 18 June, Indian troops apparently crossed into the territory in dispute between China and Bhutan in an attempt to prevent the road construction. China criticized that India has no legal grounds and that the dispute was recently created by India to undermine the long lasting peace and tranquility in this segment, further claiming that the agreed upon border here was the foundation for the tranquility of this border segment in the backdrop of other Sino-India border segments fraught with unclear demarcations. In a 1949 treaty, Bhutan agreed to let India guide its foreign policy and defense affairs. In 2007, the treaty was superseded by a new friendship treaty that replaced the provision that made it mandatory for Bhutan to take India's guidance on foreign policy, providing broader sovereignty to Bhutan and not requiring it to obtain India's permission over arms imports. Article 2 of the 2007 Friendship Treaty signed by India and Bhutan in 2007 states:
In keeping with the abiding ties of close friendship and cooperation between Bhutan and India, the Government of the Kingdom of Bhutan and the Government of the Republic of India shall cooperate closely with each other on issues relating to their national interests.
Former Foreign Secretary and Ambassador of India to China, Nirupama Rao said:
Bhutan and India enjoy the closest relationship of mutual trust and confidence and enduring friendship. There is absolutely no controversy about military-to-military cooperation and understanding between our two countries. India holds Bhutanese sovereignty as sacred and inviolable.
Ambassador of Bhutan to India Vetsop Namgyel stated,
Doklam is a disputed territory and Bhutan has a written agreement with China that pending the final resolution of the boundary issue, peace and tranquillity should be maintained in the area.
India charges that China has violated this 'peace agreement' by trying to construct roads in Doklam. India also criticized China for "crossing the border" and attempting to construct a road (allegedly done "illegally"), while China criticized India for entering its territory.
On 29 June 2017, Bhutan protested to China against the construction of a road in the disputed territory.[10] On the same day, the Bhutanese border was put on high alert and border security was tightened as a result of the growing tensions. China released a map depicting Doklam as part of China. According to China's claim, via the map, that territory south to Gipmochi belonged to China and claimed it was supported by the 1890 Britain–China treaty Convention of Calcutta.
On 3 July 2017, China told India that former Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru accepted the 1890 Britain–China treaty.
On 5 July 2017, the Chinese government said that it had for the past 24 months a basic consensus with Bhutan that Doklam belongs to China, and there was no dispute between the two countries. Contrary to Chinese claim, Nehru’s 26 September 1959 letter to Zhou, cited by China, was a point-by-point refutation of the claims made by the latter on 8 September 1959. Nehru made is amply clear in his refutal that the 1890 treaty defined only the northern part of the Sikkim-Tibet border and not the tri-junction area. Nehru claimed that "rectification of errors in Chinese maps regarding the boundary of Bhutan with Tibet is, therefore, a matter which has to be discussed along with the boundary of India with the Tibet region of China in the same sector."
The Chinese government quoted Nehru's statement out of context, as Nehru in his reply had made it clear boundaries of Sikkim and Bhutan did not fall within the scope of the discussion:
This Convention of 1890 also defined the boundary between Sikkim and Tibet; and the boundary was later, in 1895, demarcated. There is thus no dispute regarding the boundary of Sikkim with the Tibet region.
On this clarification, Chinese official spokesman replied: "The so-called tri-junction, as the name suggests, is a point. It is not a line, much less an area. India misinterprets tri-junction point as an area, from ulterior motives. This time, the trespassing point of Indian army, is on the Sikkim-China border, which is 2000 metres away from the tri-junction point, Mount Gipmochi, by the 1890 Treaty."
On 19 July 2017, China renewed its call for India to withdraw its troops from Doklam. On 2 August 2017, according to information released by the Chinese government, there are still around 40 Indian troops and one bulldozer in Doklam (Donglang) region.
On 24 July 2017, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told reporters that it is very clear who is right and who is wrong in the standoff in Doklam, and that even senior Indian officials have publicly said that Chinese troops have not intruded into Indian territory.[11]
Criticism
Retired Australian-British journalist and scholar Neville Maxwell, criticized India:[12]
"Every generation of literate Indians is inculcated with that false sense of national oppression by the cartographic image showing broad areas of Indian territory 'occupied' by China, with reminders that Beijing’s maps reveal an intention to seize even more... Time, weather and probably local human mischief will have obliterated the border markers [from 1890] but the careful verbal description in the Treaty prevails to prove that the local Indian commander, with or without higher orders, has blatantly moved forces into what is now Chinese territory. Beijing, sorely chafed already by India’s recent repeated provocations, appears to have decided that this is too much, and has itself adopted the absolutist Nehruvian position of 'no discussion without withdrawal'." "The Indian attempt to depict this confrontation as tripartite should be disregarded. Bhutan is not an independent actor, is rather an Indian glove-puppet."
Indian scholar Srinath Raghavan stated that China was being disingenuous in acting as if the Indian troops entered Chinese territory crossing a settled international boundary. Not only was China yet to reach a border agreement with Bhutan, after 24 rounds of negotiations, but, specifically with respect to Doklam, it agreed with India in 2012 'both on the "basis of the alignment" and on the need to fix the tri-junction in consultation with Bhutan'.
"There are only three facts that matter to the current situation. First, China’s construction of a road in violation of an understanding with Bhutan to maintain status quo. Second, China’s attempt to create facts on the ground about the location of the tri-junction. Third, the presence of Indian troops on territory disputed between Bhutan and China. Restoration of status quo ante will require all sides to undo their actions."[13]
An article from South China Morning Post wrote that India’s control over Bhutan can be seen in three aspects: the economy, military and diplomacy.
"On the economic front, India has control over Bhutan’s important income source, which is exports in hydroelectric power.[14] On the military front, Bhutan’s armed forces are only about 10,000-strong and they receive Indian military training. Bhutan does not maintain formal diplomatic relations with China and the rest of the UN Security Council’s permanent members."[15]
Chinese historian Li Woteng stated that according to India's statement, India's action of "crossing the border" was coordinated with the Bhutanese government. If so, its action has Bhutan's approval. Therefore, China cannot hold that India's action is unreasonable as long as Bhutan is not subject to Indian coercion.[16]
"It is not unreasonable for India and Bhutan to oppose Chinese roads construction for security reasons, yet it is still questionable whether 'opposing the road construction' can be rationalized the action of 'entering the area under China's control'... India has built a large number of military bases in the disputed area of southern Tibet, yet China never crosses the border to stop them... In 2013, China encircled Second Thomas Shoal since they believed that the Philippines had been building cement construction on the shol... it depends on the strength and decision of the parties."
See also
- China–India relations
- Bhutan–China relations
- Sino-Indian War
- Nathu La and Cho La clashes
- Siliguri Corridor
References
- ^ Safi, Michael (5 July 2017). "Chinese and Indian troops face off in Bhutan border dispute". Retrieved 10 August 2017 – via The Guardian.
- ^ "Doklam standoff: China sends a warning to India over border dispute". Los Angeles Times. Associated Press. 24 July 2017. Retrieved 11 August 2017.
- ^ "China warns Indian troops to get out of contested region". Retrieved 10 August 2017.
- ^ Barry, Steven Lee Myers, Ellen; Fisher, Max (26 July 2017). "How India and China Have Come to the Brink Over a Remote Mountain Pass". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 August 2017 – via NYTimes.com.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ "Sikkim standoff: Beijing should realise Bhutan is as important to India as North Korea is to China". Firstpost. 30 June 2017. Retrieved 11 August 2017.
- ^ "Doklam Standoff: Beyond Border Dispute - Mainstream Weekly". www.mainstreamweekly.net. Retrieved 10 August 2017.
- ^ Mitra, Devirupa (5 July 2017). "Expert Gyan: On India, China Stand-Off At Border Tri-Junction With Bhutan". The Wire. Retrieved 11 August 2017.
- ^ ."关系:洞郎地区 (3964647)S". OpenStreetMap. Retrieved 2017-08-07.
- ^ Som, Vishnu (2017-06-29). Shukla, Shuchi (ed.). "At Heart Of India-China Standoff, A Road Being Built: 10 Points". NDTV. Archived from the original on 2017-08-09.
{{cite news}}
:|archive-date=
/|archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; 2017-06-29 suggested (help); Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) - ^ "Bhutan protests against China's road construction". The Straits Times. 30 June 2017. Retrieved 11 August 2017.
- ^ Wang Zihao, U.S. scholar: India should remember the history, China Daily, 2017-08-03
- ^ Neville Maxwell, This Is India's China War, Round Two, Jul 14, 2017
- ^ Srinath Raghavan, China is wrong on Sikkim-Tibet boundary, livemint, 7 August 2017.
- ^ "NE terror, China: What's on PM Modi's Bhutan trip agenda?". Firstpost. 15 June 2014. Retrieved 11 August 2017.
- ^ India must stop trampling on Bhutan’s sovereignty, SCMP, 2017-08-09
- ^ Li Woteng, The ins and outs of the Sino - Indian border dispute, The Initium, 2017-08-10
External links
- Neville Maxwell, THIS IS INDIA’S CHINA WAR, ROUND TWO, Jul 14, 2017