What's new

WHAT SOUTH CHINA SEA RIVALS CAN LEARN FROM THE DOKLAM BORDER DISPUTE

LOGICAL BOSSS

BANNED
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
521
Reaction score
-17
Country
India
Location
India
http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/geopo...na-sea-rivals-can-learn-doklam-border-dispute

66ac8304-8ed9-11e7-9f40-4d9615941c08_1320x770_225421.JPG


Just as imperceptibly as China and India were locked into a standoff in mid-Juneon a narrow plateau near the China-Bhutan-India trijunction area in the Sikkim Himalayas, so the standoff was wound down imperceptibly with deft diplomacy by both sides.

On August 28, a week before President Xi Jinping was due to host Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Xiamen for the ninth BRICS summit, New Delhi and Beijing began implementing the terms of their disengagement understanding, commencing with the withdrawal of Indian troops and equipment from the Chinese side of the border. The offending Chinese road construction activity that had constituted a “significant change in the [security] status quo” in India’s view and triggered its trespass across the border in the first place, is likely to be withdrawn in the days ahead.

The plateau in question, the Dolam Plateau in the Doklam area, once again reverts to its former status as the subject of a legal dispute between China and Bhutan, under the effective control of China, and holding an important security interest to India.

A host of questions abound regarding the timing of the denouement. Did Xi blink in order to remove a dark cloud over the impending BRICS summit as well as the forthcoming 19th National Party Congress? Was Modi read the riot act that forced him to move first? Was Bhutan a silent bystander through gritted teeth all along?


Larger questions abound regarding the motivation and chosen course of action by both parties. What prompted Beijing to build a road of marginal military value in a sensitive security zone where it suffers obvious tactical disadvantages? How wise was it for New Delhi to militarily intervene on Thimpu’s behalf to uphold the latter’s feebly-articulated claims of sovereignty over a patch of territory that had all along been under Beijing’s effective control? Shouldn’t New Delhi have made its point and withdrawn much earlier, as it has in previous instances along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) – its undefined border with China?

There are no questions on one issue though: the assemblage of Sino-Indian boundary management protocols, which are intended to confer peace and tranquillity to the border areas as well as serve as a crisis management mechanism, held-up impeccably throughout the standoff.

Two provisions in particular played an outsize role: the requirement that border personnel on both sides be lightly armed and exercise maximum self-restraint in case of untoward encounters at the border; and the limits on armed force deployments as well as ceilings on tanks, large calibre infantry guns, and surface-to-surface missiles to their rear within designated zones.

Together, these provisions ensured that the face-off between Chinese and Indian border personnel was limited to fisticuffs at worst, and helped extend the noteworthy streak – now almost 42 years – of not a single life being lost in anger along their Himalayan border.

The successful application of China-India boundary management protocols bears wider relevance to the South China Sea, East China Sea and the Western Pacific, where such mechanisms operate rudimentarily at best.

First and foremost, boundary or crisis management measures with China are a confidence-building measure. Each of the five agreements that China and India have signed were arrived at during warming phases of their post-1988 relationship. Each instilled confidence in the others’ intentions and provided a fillip to their larger boundary dispute resolution-related discussions. For a code of conduct in the South China Sea or a maritime communication mechanism in the East China Sea to take shape, a period of political quiet and trust must first be engendered in Asean (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and Japan’s respective relationships with Beijing. China-Japan relations currently are not at this stage yet.Second, devising boundary or crisis management mechanisms with China requires patience and perseverance. There is no single authoritative Sino-Indian document. Rather, there is a compendium of documents interspersed over a two decade-long period that lay out the range of protocols. Expecting an initial agreement to deliver foolproof returns during its first test-by-crisis, as the United States anticipated during the April 2001 EP-3 Spy Plane Incident, is to vest too much authority in any one document.

Third, boundary or crisis management mechanisms with China are a work in progress. Each of the five such agreements – in 1993, 1996, 2005, 2012 and 2013 – that India has initialed with China builds upon the previous one/s, with the latter three aimed at incrementally plugging gaps that have arisen. In the 2013 agreement, a ‘no tailing’ clause was added to prevent face-offs that were tending to occur due to aggressive tailing by one patrol of a rival patrol. In a similar vein, China and India should draw up an additional protocol that forbids construction-related activity in close proximity to the two sides’ understanding of the LAC. With Beijing increasingly mirroring New Delhi’s habit of building light infrastructure which has led to recurring standoffs in recent years, the time to devise this patch is now.

Beijing and New Delhi should also establish greater geographic separation between their border forces, while paying due consideration to parameters such as the nature of terrain, the existing state of road communication and other infrastructure, and the time taken to induct/de-induct troops and armaments for either side during a military emergency.

Finally, Sino-Indian boundary and crisis management arrangements are voluntary and depend entirely on good faith. Although the provisions are prescriptive, they do not contain binding verification mechanisms. While either party is at liberty to disregard provisions that do not suit its interests, the tendency has in fact been for both parties to treat the arrangements as a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ that is deserving of utmost respect. The claimant states in the South China Sea and Asean, too, would gain by endowing suppleness within the provisions of their bilateral consultation mechanism and code of conduct, respectively, rather than stack all their chips in a single, highly legalistic, results oriented document. It would lend stability and sturdiness to their maritime crisis management interactions.

China and India face a host of challenges at the boundary and beyond, which are made no easier by the trust deficit in ties. The success of the boundary management protocols is on the other hand an underappreciated facet of the depth and resilience in ties. Their success during the Doklam crisis is a testament to this resilience. Beijing’s rival claimants in Asia’s seas and strategic competitors in the Western Pacific would be well-advised to pay attention to these crisis management lessons.
@Kaptaan Some more article for you
 
I have this feeling that India won't stop this propaganda until they get thrashed by China in 1962 style. So China should plan a military expedition and put them in their right place.

Hard to thrash them when they keep unilaterally retreating like they did in Donglang.

I think India's strategy is to feed China more and more territory (whether India's or Bhutan's territory) to avoid a war, since during a war they will lose that territory anyway. Might as well give it to us now, it will save them from having to face another defeat like 1962.
 
they called you sissy
no, they called you because your soldiers left in the dark of the night without fighting. just a few flying plummeted their morale to subzero level.

Hard to thrash them when they keep unilaterally retreating like they did in Donglang.

I think India's strategy is to feed China more and more territory (whether India's or Bhutan's territory) to avoid a war, since during a war they will lose that territory anyway. Might as well give it to us now, it will save them from having to face another defeat like 1962.
But still something needs to be done that shuts their foul mouths
 
100% agree but current CPC have many liberal sell out who are corrupt as ****. They rather make money and let Hindu keep propagating news like these. It's really shameful.
Also I tell you that if China does not put india in place, world will not consider a superpower. Economy is major aspect of being superpower but that's not all. Russia and USA are still considered powers because they use their military to project power around the globe. Since Russia has entered openly in Syria, the world has realised that they read the obituary of Russia as superpower was too soon.

Comon you fake dragon, you had exactly 72 days to trash us :-). If you read around this forum from mid June you will be emabarrased about multiple dead line. Your PLA is a pussy.


Ho p.a.k.i cheerleader. It won't end good for your country this decade stay safe in Sweden
Well my country is here and will be here...however we will see the 1000-year rule returning to Delhi but with one difference this time... it will stay till the end.
 
Last edited:
100% agree but current CPC have many liberal sell out who are corrupt as ****. They rather make money and let Hindu keep propagating news like these. It's really shameful.
No hesitation to say all in all it was a poor show by China.With this military might and trillion dollar economy.China compromised so easily.Image of China being a future super power is totally shattered.It seems some indians are taking decision on the behalf of China.Total disappointment :sleep:.A very wrong message sent across the world.Donot depend on China for your defence related matters.Just talk about the business.
 
Hard to thrash them when they keep unilaterally retreating like they did in Donglang.

I think India's strategy is to feed China more and more territory (whether India's or Bhutan's territory) to avoid a war, since during a war they will lose that territory anyway. Might as well give it to us now, it will save them from having to face another defeat like 1962.


lol good one :lol:
 
Also I tell you that if China does not put india in place, world will not consider a superpower. Economy is major aspect of being superpower but that's not all. Russia and USA are still considered powers because they use their military to project power around the globe. Since Russia has entered openly in Syria, the world has realised that they read the obituary of Russia as superpower was too soon.
Russia had enough of it when NATO keeps crawling closer and closer to its borders. Russia couldn't do a thing for Yugoslavia. Look at what have become of Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq. Fortunately for Assad Russia won't allow Syria to become like those fallen. The West wants to turn Ukraine into another NATO puppet but the Russian bear showed its claws and teeth. China too will have to respond in military style if the red line is crossed.

The title of this thread gives a false impression. It should be what India and the rest of South East Asian members can learn from China's dealing with PH. For now let the slumdogs enjoy their win, once the roads are there it's gonna be humiliating.
 
Doklam was a huge win for Modi. India didn't want the road there and now there's isn't.

I'd still tread cautiously though.

The only thing India win is to get our attention and asked China to bring more devastating fire power to India border, the rest is just a bullsh1t self delude claims.
 
Back
Top Bottom