China FM: China to complete construction plans for Dong Lang (Doklam) subject to local conditions

[Han Patriot]

If that is the case, why would China bring up 1890 treaty at all?

I am not questioning whether China owns Doklam or not. 1890 treaty shows China as owning it. But I am correcting you from saying India entered through the demarcated borders of non-disputed areas. India entered a demarcated boundary of a disputed area. This is a big difference.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

If China did not begin with the claim of the undisputed-ness of this border, it would be more consistent but lacked the moral high ground.

Morality has nothing to do with geopolitics.

Once upon a time, all of this "territory" was owned by no one. But some tribes fared better than others, and one such tribe (the Huaxia) has evolved into an entity (China) that now controls that area. Whereas in the past few months it was contested by another entity (India) that only existed after it was created by the British in recent history.

Maybe one day in the future, some future civilization will control that area. Who knows. The fact that China now controls Donglang, and zero blood was spilled, was a good achievement, considering how strategically important that area is.

 

[nang2]

I am not questioning whether China owns Doklam or not. 1890 treaty shows China as owning it. But I am correcting you from saying India entered through the demarcated borders of non-disputed areas. India entered a demarcated boundary of a disputed area. This is a big difference.

I don't think China mentioned anything about demarcation. China stated that India crossed the border that was settled by 1890 treaty. After all, India troops were very close to the border. It is hard to say that they violated the sovereignty of Doklam without first recognizing that they violated the border.

Morality has nothing to do with geopolitics.

Once upon a time, all of this "territory" was owned by no one. But some tribes fared better than others, and one such tribe (the Huaxia) has evolved into an entity (China) that now controls that area. Whereas in the past few months it was contested by another entity (India) that only existed after it was created by the British in recent history.

Maybe one day in the future, some future civilization will control that area. Who knows. The fact that China now controls Donglang, and zero blood was spilled, was a good achievement, considering how strategically important that area is.

It does when a government needs to rally the support from its own people.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

It does when a government needs to rally the support from its own people.

Have you heard any Chinese nationals complaining about China changing its moral position RE: Donglang, from before and after the standoff?

There have been a lot of complaints, but more to do with China being too light on India, and not teaching India a lesson in military terms.

So if you were the Chinese government, wouldn't you be more inclined to listen to the issue that people were actually complaining about?

 

[nang2]

Have you heard any Chinese nationals complaining about China changing its moral position RE: Donglang, from before and after the standoff?

There have been a lot of complaints, but more to do with China being too light on India, and not teaching India a lesson in military terms.

So if you were the Chinese government, wouldn't you be more inclined to listen to the issue that people were actually complaining about?

Exactly. When Chinese government said it was undisputed border, Chinese people wanted the government to behave in the way that is compatible to its claim. Unfortunately, what I have gathered so far, Chinese government didn't behave any differently from other and routine border conflict with India. Chinese may as well treat that border the same as other disputed border sections.

 

[Han Patriot]

I don't think China mentioned anything about demarcation. China stated that India crossed the border that was settled by 1890 treaty. After all, India troops were very close to the border. It is hard to say that they violated the sovereignty of Doklam without first recognizing that they violated the border.


It does when a government needs to rally the support from its own people.

Both borders are demarcated but with who it is demarcated? Read the communique. The key question here is who changed the status quo, India got a postponement, China got de facto control of Doklam plateau. This was the outcome.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Exactly. When Chinese government said it was undisputed border, Chinese people wanted the government to behave in the way that is compatible to its claim. Unfortunately, what I have gathered so far, Chinese government didn't behave any differently from other and routine border conflict with India. Chinese may as well treat that border the same as other disputed border sections.

This is true of all disputed areas, regardless of country. In official statements and official viewpoints they are not considered disputed at all (to the point of all other claims being ignored), however in practice they are recognized as disputed for the purposes of practical military strategy.

And the strategy changes over time. Like when they backed off in the SCS, or when India backed off in Donglang, that gives China more room to set up more permanent military facilities, such as bases in the SCS and garrisons in Donglang.

Officially these areas are not disputed. In practice however, it would be foolish to ignore the ground realities when coming up with tactics or strategy. Otherwise, for example, India would just casually start building military bases in Aksai Chin, or Russia would conduct official military exercises in Eastern Ukraine. But obviously these things don't happen.

 

[nang2]

This is true of all disputed areas, regardless of country. In official statements and official viewpoints they are not considered disputed at all (to the point of all other claims being ignored), however in practice they are recognized as disputed for the purposes of practical military strategy.

And the strategy changes over time. Like when they backed off in the SCS, or when India backed off in Donglang, that gives China more room to set up more permanent military facilities, such as bases in the SCS and garrisons in Donglang.

Officially these areas are not disputed. In practice however, it would be foolish to ignore the ground realities when coming up with tactics or strategy. Otherwise, for example, India would just casually start building military bases in Aksai Chin, or Russia would conduct official military exercises in Eastern Ukraine. But obviously these things don't happen.

It would be wise that Chinese government is just quiet about 1890 treaty and treats Sikkim-China border as unsettled. Talking about that treaty just confuses Chinese and Chinese troops. For example, now, start to patrol over to Sikkim side regularly at different sections. That is what army should do for unsettled borders.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

Has Narenda Modi Switched Sides?
by F. William Engdahl

Over the past few months, India has changed its attitude abruptly on several issues. It is as Prime Minister Narendra Modi is trying to sabotage his rapprochement with China and Pakistan and to create artificial conflicts. For William Engdhal, this shift would be inspired by Washington and Tel Aviv.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article197617.html

______________________________________________________
This would clearly show the duplicious nature of India in all aspects.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

It would be wise that Chinese government is just quiet about 1890 treaty and treats Sikkim-China border as unsettled. Talking about that treaty just confuses Chinese and Chinese troops. For example, now, start to patrol over to Sikkim side regularly at different sections. That is what army should do for unsettled borders.

Could you clarify what you mean?

Why would it serve China's national interests to keep quiet about the 1890 treaty?

 

[nang2]

Could you clarify what you mean?

Why would it serve China's national interests to keep quiet about the 1890 treaty?

to be consistent in speech and action so that when china speaks, people listen.

 

[Dungeness]

to be consistent in speech and action so that when china speaks, people listen.

I understand your point of view, which is quite representative among some younger Chinese patriots. I admit that I was disappointed when the settlement first reached: That's it? India got away with murder yet again?

Come to think about, could the whole incident be a carefully contemplated trap setup not by India but other bigger players behind the scene, just to sabotage China's ambitious Belt and Road Initiative that could potentially change the status quo of world order for good? Just think about it, what if the 2nd Sino-India war broke out and spun out of control of either government? Who would be the ultimate winner?

When it comes to the depth of strategic calculus, China is second to none. After all China did not become what it is today by a series of historical accidents.

 

[nang2]

I understand your point of view, which is quite representative among some younger Chinese patriots. I admit that I was disappointed when the settlement first reached: That's it? India got away with murder yet again?

Come to think about, could the whole incident be a carefully contemplated trap setup not by India but other bigger players behind the scene, just to sabotage China's ambitious Belt and Road Initiative that could potentially change the status quo of world order for good? Just think about it, what if the 2nd Sino-India war broke out and spun out of control of either government? Who would be the ultimate winner?

When it comes to the depth of strategic calculus, China is second to none. After all China did not become what it is today by a series of historical accidents.

Agree. I hope China can learn a lesson from it and try to make itself less poke-able. In this case, China had no clear India strategy and was fairly delusional with regard to the relationship. It caught off guard and only played defensively, unlike in south china sea, where China played proactively. That is why I say Modi made a successful gamble and called China's bluff.

However, the long-term impact is still unknown so let's wait and see.

 

[Dungeness]

Agree. I hope China can learn a lesson from it and try to make itself less poke-able. In this case, China had no clear India strategy and was fairly delusional with regard to the relationship. It caught off guard and only played defensively, unlike in south china sea, where China played proactively. That is why I say Modi made a successful gamble and called China's bluff.

However, the long-term impact is still unknown so let's wait and see.

Yes, China needs to have a more clearly defined India strategy, until now Chinese leadership has held a one-sided wishful thinking that it can accommodate India in a win-win proposition. It is obvious that India is not in bed with China, rather, it's a willing member of a camp of world powers that are hostile to China's rise. I believe things will be changing from this point on.

As for Modi's gamble, India did not walk away with anything tangible but alienating a good-willed neighbor. Indians will always find a reason to claim a victory, that the way they are. IMO it is just an inferiority complex disguised as superiority.

 

[nang2]

Yes, China needs to have a more clearly defined India strategy, until now Chinese leadership has held a one-sided wishful thinking that it can accommodate India in a win-win proposition. It is obvious that India is not in bed with China, rather, it's a willing member of a camp of world powers that are hostile to China's rise. I believe things will be changing from this point on.

As for Modi's gamble, India did not walk away with anything tangible but alienating a good-willed neighbor. Indians will always find a reason to claim a victory, that the way they are. IMO it is just an inferiority complex disguised as superiority.

I don't think India cares about alienating a good-willed neighbor at all. Ever since CPEC, India has made up her mind that China is a major threat to India. In this case, India has successfully damaged China's credibility in the world. Pakistan may question how seriously China regards her own security, let alone theirs. Pushing projects like OBOR requires a stronger credit so that other countries are more willing to cooperate. They need to know when under threat, how willingly Chinese protect the project.