"We'll Stand With Friends...": US On India Amid Ladakh Row With China

[GumNaam]

Speaking on the India-China talks on the border standoff, Price said that the US supports peaceful resolution of the situation.

View attachment 715089
United States has expressed concern over Beijing's attempts to intimidate neighbours.

Washington [US]:

The United States on Tuesday expressed concern over Beijing's attempts to intimidate neighbours and supported a peaceful resolution to the India-China border standoff.

Speaking during a press briefing, US State Department spokesperson Ned Price said: "We are concerned by Beijing's pattern of ongoing attempts to intimidate its neighbours. As always, we'll stand with friends, we'll stand with partners, we'll stand with allies to advance our shared prosperity, security and values, in this case, the Indo-Pacific."

Speaking on the India-China talks on the border standoff, Price said that the US supports peaceful resolution of the situation.

"We are closely monitoring the situation. We know the ongoing talks between governments of India and China and we continue to support direct dialogue and a peaceful resolution of those border disputes," he said.

Price also referred to the talks between US State Secretary Antony Blinken and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, adding that the US-India comprehensive strategic partnership is both broad as well as multifaceted.

"We will continue to engage at the highest levels of our governments to deepen cooperation on many fronts and we are confident that the strong and upward trajectory of our partnership will continue," the State Department spokesperson mentioned about the India-US partnership.

This comes after India and China on Tuesday held bilateral consultations on issues on the agenda of the United Nations Security Council amid the military standoff on the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

According to a statement by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), during the video conferencing with the Chinese officials, the Indian delegation briefed the Chinese side "on India's priorities during its UNSC tenure."

"Both sides discussed a wide range of issues on the UNSC agenda. The Indian delegation briefed the Chinese side on India''s priorities during its UNSC tenure. Both sides agreed to continue their engagement on key issues on the UNSC agenda," it stated further.

The two countries have been engaged in a stand-off along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) since April-May last year. While China began amassing massive military strength along the LAC, India responded with a befitting build-up.

The Chinese have been asking India to withdraw troops and tanks first from the southern bank but India has been asking for disengagement from all the friction points.

"We'll Stand With Friends...": US On India Amid Ladakh Row With China

The United States on Tuesday expressed concern over Beijing's attempts to intimidate neighbours and supported a peaceful resolution to the India-China border standoff.

www.ndtv.com

oh, ok uncle sam, ok. da hell do you mean by "you stand with friends"? what're you? CHINA?

as usual, lip service!

no, it is india that is giving uncle sam the "lip service"!

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

If you read your own link, you'll understand the kind of aid, we are talking about is different from what the article is all about. The article also says Israel recived 100 times more than India..should we focus in that ? Grow up.

In other words, it's only an issue when Pakistan receives aid, not when india does the same. A bit like how you indians also claim india is a rich superpower even though india has the highest number of severely malnourished and extremely poor people in the world.........

 

[TheDarkKnight]

See I'll tell you.... Once you are an open ally and are the receiver without payments/discounts...you can't say No to the boss. We can, and we say NO whenever it suits our strategic designs. This WoT, you could have avoided being a part of the moment you realised it was harming your own interests but you couldn't. The damage was done before you could say no. Compare that with India. India who is facing the China on a possible war, will be more than happy to have American soldiers and machines on the Himalayas.

Do you think it was a financial transaction of sort, where one country got an item and then xyz was expected- otherwise there was a coercive measure to extract things? It is not as simplistic as you may have seen in crime syndicate movies, which I think is how you are trying to explain this situation. US and Pakistan relations never got damaged due to who gave what or for how much.

Once you are engaged in a conflict or a dispute, it doesnt matter if you are paying for those weapons or getting them for free - the conflict along with all of its evils will effect you the same way whether the weapons were paid by own funds or received via aid. In Pakistans case US got to defeat its biggest enemy - the Soviets, while their own citizens lived a prosperous peaceful life generally. I see similar alliances vs China being developed, as part of China containment policy, in which the brunt most probably will be beared by India. Australia and US are not going to engage in a direct conflict at all with China just like they did not with Soviets.

 

[Gilljutt]

Lol. What "friend" other than Pakistan has the USA abandoned?

 

[Mirza Jatt]

No I never said it's like a financial transaction. It was a way to make you understand the difference. I think you missed the point where I said ' "Pakistan could avoid fighting someone else's war'. Whereas, considering China's agression, India will have to go into an inevitable war to defend it territories, So it's not America's war that India will be fighting. India will have to take action anyway..so it's always good to have the US in India's war. "

Do you think it was a financial transaction of sort, where one country got an item and then xyz was expected- otherwise there was a coercive measure to extract things? It is not as simplistic as you may have seen in crime syndicate movies, which I think is how you are trying to explain this situation. US and Pakistan relations never got damaged due to who gave what or for how much.

Once you are engaged in a conflict or a dispute, it doesnt matter if you are paying for those weapons or getting them for free - the conflict along with all of its evils will effect you the same way whether the weapons were paid by own funds or received via aid. In Pakistans case US got to defeat its biggest enemy - the Soviets, while their own citizens lived a prosperous peaceful life generally. I see similar alliances vs China being developed, as part of China containment policy, in which the brunt most probably will be beared by India. Australia and US are not going to engage in a direct conflict at all with China just like they did not with Soviets.

 

[KurtisBrian]

Lol. What friend other than Pakistan has the USA abandoned?

off the top of my head, Vietnam, Iraq, Native Americans (many treaties broken) Perhaps the Afghans, Filipinos (I think there was support for a republic and then the US crushed it)?

 

[Black.Mamba]

They will for sure stand with the friend but the fact is USA does not have any friends

 

[Mirza Jatt]

I can go on an try to explainn....but if you dont read your own posted article then God help you.

In other words, it's only an issue when Pakistan receives aid, not when india does the same. A bit like how you indians also claim india is a rich superpower even though india has the highest number of severely malnourished and extremely poor people in the world.........

 

[Gilljutt]

off the top of my head, Vietnam, Iraq, Native Americans (many treaties broken) Perhaps the Afghans, Filipinos (I think there was support for a republic and then the US crushed it)?

Vietnam and Iraq wanted the USA out. The USA actually has a good track record of supporting it's allies.

 

[KurtisBrian]

Vietnam and Iraq wanted the USA out. The USA actually has a good track record of supporting it's allies.

The South Vietnamese did NOT want the US to abandon them! The US public didn't want the US there so the US left. (from my pov US shouldn't have been in that war anyway)
Saddam, supported in the Iran Iraq war, asked the US for permission to invade Kuwait. Then smack! (my pov US should not have been helping either nation)

the US has an excellent track record of supporting the interests of the USA (which makes perfect sense). The interests of the US and it's allies usually coincide.
On a small scale, how about the recent Meng case. Wasn't in Canada's interest. What happened?

 

[Gilljutt]

The South Vietnamese did NOT want the US to abandon them! The US public didn't want the US there so the US left. (from my pov US shouldn't have been in that war anyway)
Saddam, supported in the Iran Iraq war, asked the US for permission to invade Kuwait. Then smack! (my pov US should not have been helping either nation)

the US has an excellent track record of supporting the interests of the USA (which makes perfect sense). The interests of the US and it's allies usually coincide.
On a small scale, how about the recent Meng case. Wasn't in Canada's interest. What happened?

South Vietnam government lost the support of its own people. The Vietnamese people had enough of colonialism.

Lol. Saddam asked the USA if he could invade Iraq? Ok.

 

[Trango Towers]

USA stands with India.....about 10000 miles behind but right behind as you know.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

I can go on an try to explainn....but if you dont read your own posted article then God help you.

In other words, you have NO explanation or succinct reasoning to counter or refute my arguments..........

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

Friend today but enemy tomorrow.

That is the chameleon nature of US foreign policy.

Only fools and idiots will trust USA today.

 

[Beefeatergin]

Actually you are correct. India learnt this when USA gave this treatment to Pakistan. So no..we are not falling into that trap. But business...business will continue.

USA better start to adopt to your “culture”

Man accused of kissing toddler on lips cited 'cultural differences', court told

Nikhil Bhatia allegedly approached a two-year-old he did not know at a Darling Harbour aquarium, grabbed his arm and kissed him twice. He intends to plead not guilty to intentionally sexually touching a child under 10 years.

amp.smh.com.au