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

[Joe Shearer]

China was mobilizing for war but the Indians ran like frightened cowards. I can't blame PLA for this but I do blame CPC for not being media savvy to rebuke the lying darkies after the shenenigan


The first sign of losing an argument is talking nonsense. Even Joe Shearer, Indian professional was unable to debate.

 

[nalan]

If one day US worships dock at Chinas inland in scs.don't be surprised.surely it's a good expectation

 

[Joe Shearer]

Even the most level-headed Indian professional is assuming Chinese should be frustrated, in line with all Indian newbies who keep ranting Chinese butt-hurt. Do you guys actually find your self-deceiving tactic somehow substantiate your perceived "victory"? It goes to show how little Indians understand Chinese philosophy.

I read the news. Not the Indian news.
Try it sometime.

@Jlaw
First, there was no debate; just a lot of laughter.
Second, don't be racist.

 

[Dungeness]

I read the news. Not the Indian news.
Try it sometime.

@Jlaw
First, there was no debate; just a lot of laughter.
Second, don't be racist.

Welcome to join this "China butthurt" laughing party, do read whatever news that helps you feel your "Biggest Diplomatic Victory in Decades" more like a real deal. Analysis or critical thinking is not required.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I


IF? says pity little Indian, expect US navy to do your midday fantasies? Grow up! Indian own cow has back to their Modi pastureland their own, now their acting like a bull back home.

The first sign of losing an argument is talking nonsense. Even Joe Shearer, Indian professional was unable to debate.

What to expect from Indian hiding behind western avatar name?

Oh, that's easy.
Politeness, a willingness to learn, adherence to the facts in preference to opinions, the patience to present facts even when confronted by personal attacks and communal innuendoes.....want more?

China was mobilizing for war but the Indians ran like frightened cowards. I can't blame PLA for this but I do blame CPC for not being media savvy to rebuke the lying darkies after the shenenigan


The first sign of losing an argument is talking nonsense. Even Joe Shearer, Indian professional was unable to debate.

LOL.
What debate?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Welcome to join this "China butthurt" laughing party, do read whatever news that helps you feel your "Biggest Diplomatic Victory in Decades" more like a real deal. Analysis or critical thinking is not required.

The more you insist on this episode being surreal, the more tangible and real it gets.
Haven't you got it yet? The world is laughing NOT because of any Indian statement (there was none that was not bland and non-committal), NOT because of any Indian fanboy exuberance, but because of the sustained display on-line of seething anger of Chinese media and Chinese netizenry. If you had kept quiet, none of us would have thought anything interesting had happened. It was the strident shrieking behaviour during the crisis and the continued such behaviour after everyone else had gone home that made people wonder.
We continue to chuckle and enjoy ourselves. I regret sincerely that some of this mirth might be directed at serious members like you and ChineseDragon. My personal apologies for any pain you may feel.

 

[Dungeness]

The more you insist on this episode being surreal, the more tangible and real it gets.
Haven't you got it yet? The world is laughing NOT because of any Indian statement (there was none that was not bland and non-committal), NOT because of any Indian fanboy exuberance, but because of the sustained display on-line of seething anger of Chinese media and Chinese netizenry. If you had kept quiet, none of us would have thought anything interesting had happened. It was the strident shrieking behaviour during the crisis and the continued such behaviour after everyone else had gone home that made people wonder.
We continue to chuckle and enjoy ourselves. I regret sincerely that some of this mirth might be directed at serious members like you and ChineseDragon. My personal apologies for any pain you may feel.

Are you still following the logic that most of us share, or you are just like most of your countrymen lost the common sense? My insistence actually handed you a tangible and real victory?

"The world is laughing"? You can't get your sane citizens to agree your victory but you are representing the world consensus now?

Admittedly, many Chinese and media outlets are disappointed as China didn't take advantage of this golden opportunity to solve the Sino-India border issue once and for all. But spinning Chinese public dismay into an grand Indian victory just telling us how insecure Indians are. Had you media and Indians not come up with stupid claims like "biggest diplomatic victory in decades", many of us wouldn't have bothered to post. I have no idea what tangible outcome that Indian Army walked away with from this standoff Unilaterally, but if yet another your media victory made Modi and BJP look like a winner, I guess it is so Tangible to all Indians.


https://scroll.in/article/849306/so...nd-off-serve-certainly-not-the-indian-publics

 

[Joe Shearer]

Are you still following the logic that most of us share, or you are just like most of your countrymen lost the common sense? My insistence actually handed you a tangible and real victory?

"The world is laughing"? You can't get your sane citizens to agree your victory but you are representing the world consensus now?

Admittedly, many Chinese and media outlets are disappointed as China failed to take advantage of this golden opportunity to solve the Sino-India border issue once and for all. But spinning Chinese public dismay into an grand Indian victory just telling us how insecure Indians are. Had you media and Indians not come up with stupid claims like "biggest diplomatic victory in decades", many of us wouldn't have bothered to post. I have no idea what tangible outcome that Indian Army walked away from this standoff Unilaterally, but if yet another your media victory made Modi and BJP look like a winner, I guess it is so Tangible to all Indians.


https://scroll.in/article/849306/so...nd-off-serve-certainly-not-the-indian-publics

So screaming softly is the new reasonable? Interesting.

 

[Dungeness]

So screaming softly is the new reasonable? Interesting.

Joe, you lost your touch lately.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Joe, you lost your touch lately.

Please, what can be said on this subject?
What happened was soaked in bathos.

 

[terranMarine]

Why the India-China standoff near the Sikkim border happened at all and how it ended on August 28 after seventy one long and anxious days will never be fully known.

The Indian government maintains cryptically that «following diplomatic communications, expeditious disengagement of border personnel of India and China at the face-off site at Doklam» took place.

It falls far short of claiming any mutual agreement or understanding – or of any mutual withdrawal as such. And it says nothing about China stopping the road-building activity, either, which had apparently led to the standoff in the first instance.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry has been far more forthcoming. It put on record that:

• As a result of diplomatic representations and «effective countermeasures» at the military level, the Indian side «withdrew» all its personnel and equipment.
• The Chinese personnel «onsite have verified» the fact of Indian withdrawal.
• The Chinese troops «continue with their patrolling and stationing» in Doklam area.
• China will «adjust and deploy its military resources» in the area to meet the needs of guarding the border.
• China has long been undertaking road-building in the area and will in future «make proper building plans in light of the actual situation», taking into account weather conditions.

New Delhi has not disagreed with these Chinese contentions. Instead, what we have is a series of unattributed, calibrated, self-serving media leaks intended to portray the Indian officials as strong-willed men who stared down the Chinese.

This is rather tragi-comic, given the geopolitical reality that the standoff is a watershed event in India-China relations and regional politics. The Chinese Defence Ministry thought it necessary to warn Delhi to learn the «lesson» from the standoff.

The picture that emerges from the stated position by the two foreign ministries is that the Indian side is loathe to admit its unilateral withdrawal from Doklam and the Chinese side is disinterested in displaying triumphalism.

Clearly, with the brief summer season shortly ending in the tangled mountains in Doklam region at 11000 feet altitude, India managed to stall road-building activity by the Chinese side during this calendar year.

China on the other hand claims that the peaceful handling of the incident «demonstrates China's sincerity and attitude in preserving regional peace and stability as a responsible major country. The Chinese government values its good-neighbourly and friendly relations with India».

For both countries, it is a gain that the BRICS summit in Xiamen has had a full quorum of attendance. The BRICS is a valuable platform to advance multipolarity in the international system.

What prompted India to unilaterally withdraw troops? To quote a China expert in Delhi, «In the face of mounting Chinese psychological pressure on asymmetries, combined with coercive diplomacy and deployment of lethal equipment, the Indian announcement of ‘disengagement’ at Doklam comes as no surprise».

Indeed, there were reports backed by video and photographic evidence of China moving trainloads of advanced HQ-16 and HQ-17 missiles and other military equipment to Tibet. China was reinforcing its layered air defence systems to counter Indian air power, hinting at serious preparations for a military offensive.

Conceivably, if a conflict were to take place, that would have been most likely in September after the BRICS summit but well before the 19th National Congress of China’s Communist Party which is set for October 18.

However, two other factors also must be noted. One, the Indian economy’s growth has slowed down to around 5.7% (April-June), the slowest rate in the three years of Modi government. A war with China would cripple the economy.

Second, no country voiced support for India, leave alone criticise China, on the Doklam affair. The unkindest cut of all was that the Trump administration looked away. Washington and Tokyo are hardly in a position to take an adversarial stance vis-à-vis China over Doklam when North Korea is in their crosshairs.

Some Indian analysts boast India has become a role model for Southeast Asian nations which have territorial disputes with China in the South China Sea. But that is a stretch. On the contrary, China has displayed that on issues of territorial sovereignty, there is no compromise possible.

India can expect Chinese diplomacy in the South Asian region to display for the first time an animus against India. Countries such as Nepal, Sri Lanka or the Maldives will increasingly play off China against India.

The challenge becomes acute in regard of India’s future relations with Bhutan, the friend on whose behalf India stuck out its neck, but which kept a Delphian silence. In a press release on August 29, Bhutanese government simply said:

«Bhutan welcomes the disengagement by the two sides at the face-off site in the Doklam area. We hope this contributes to the maintenance of peace and tranquility and status quo along the borders of Bhutan, China and India in keeping with the existing agreements between the respective countries».

The statement is wide open to interpretation. There was no reference in it to road building activity by the Chinese. Indeed, there is a real possibility of the Chinese resuming road building activities in the border region in Doklam next year.

Prof. Taylor Fravel at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who is regarded as an authority on China’s borders, wrote last week,

«Before the standoff in June, China’s permanent presence in the area had been quite limited. China had maintained a road in the area for several decades, but did not garrison any forces. In contrast, India has maintained and developed a forward post at Doka La adjacent to Doklam… China may well seek to rectify this tactical imbalance of forces. In fact, the Chinese spokesperson suggested a move in this direction by saying China would continue to station forces (zhushou), most likely a reference to troops deployed to Doklam after the standoff began. If China does this, it would likely build facilities farther away from India’s position at Doka La, making it more challenging for India to intervene and block China next time. When India challenged China’s construction crews in June, it only had to move its forces a hundred meters from the existing border. In the future, India may be faced with the uncomfortable choice of deciding whether to risk much more to deny China a greater presence farther inside Doklam or to accept it. This will be a tough decision for any leader to make».

The real lesson, therefore, that India should learn from the Doklam standoff is that it shouldn’t draw any wrong conclusion. India’s focus should be on deploying diplomacy to reduce or eliminate the scope for military confrontation.

In retrospect, if only Modi government’s accent was on effective diplomacy in the crucial 3 weeks since the Chinese notified Delhi in late May of their intention to commence the road-building work at Doklam, the standoff might even have been avoided. For some strange reason, instead of activating the diplomatic levers, India resorted to military intervention.

However, the dismal picture through the past week is that the very same hollow men who probably took the fateful decision on Doklam by ordering the Indian Army to cross the international border are now falling back on their media management skills to mislead the domestic opinion into believing that India «won» in Doklam, and China «lost».

The danger here is that the «core constituency» of the Modi government would continue to harbour the foolish notion that, taking the sports analogy further, India should now proceed to claim the trophy by putting China on the mat conclusively and forever.

 

[Dungeness]

Please, what can be said on this subject?
What happened was soaked in bathos.

Here is an article by a former Indian diplomat, just to give you a different perspective for your hypothesis of "The World Is Laughing". Will you label him as an "Anti National"?


Indian posturing, post-Doklam, has a tragi-comic feel
http://www.atimes.com/indian-posturing-post-doklam-tragi-comic-feel/

 

[terranMarine]

Here is an article by a former Indian diplomat, just to give you a different perspective for your hypothesis of "The World Is Laughing". Will you label him as an "Anti National"?


Indian posturing, post-Doklam, has a tragi-comic feel
http://www.atimes.com/indian-posturing-post-doklam-tragi-comic-feel/

Wait till next year when constructions is gonna restart then they will realize how painful the humiliation really is. Until then let them enjoy this euphoric sensation. In reality Modi and the slumdog military higher ups saw the writing on the wall when our missiles were being transported, signaling a war is coming. That's why the slumdogs unilaterally crapping their pants on their way back to the border.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Here is an article by a former Indian diplomat, just to give you a different perspective for your hypothesis of "The World Is Laughing". Will you label him as an "Anti National"?


Indian posturing, post-Doklam, has a tragi-comic feel
http://www.atimes.com/indian-posturing-post-doklam-tragi-comic-feel/

I haven't read it - I don't have to - but there is a tragi-comic feel. Part of it is due to the author; perhaps you haven't had the doubtful privilege of reading him.

The confrontation should never have happened. It took place only because of the PLA practising its salami tactics on the Sino-Indian borders. It took place because of the very dangerous implications to India - and to Bhutan, far more dangerous in that it sucked that tiny country into the confrontation where it was earlier quite isolated from it - particularly with regard to the Chicken's Neck. That is a fanciful name for the Siliguri Gap, or the Siliguri Corridor, about 20 miles of Indian territory separating Nepal from Bangladesh. But, of course, like all Chinese members, you obviously know all this already.

It was tragic because it showed China at its most pushy and aggressive, moving inch by inch towards its desired position, in steps so small that those opposed do not wish to oppose it by force, so studied and deliberate that by the time the process is in maturity, significant gains and advances have been made. This has been the dilemma of all the countries who found themselves on the business end of Chinese salami-slicing tactics.

It was comic because of the unbelievable happening, of China actually not swallowing up its opposition, of a mutual tacit (or explicit) agreement that a war was not necessary, not desirable. A big reputation is a dangerous thing; it is as good as its last achievement.

I have been reading Bhadrakumar for nearly two decades now, since his retirement in the early 2000s, probably 2001, although his earliest columns are slightly later. Something seems to have blocked his progress to his desired level, because his articles are all anti-establishment; not a bad thing in itself, since a democracy thrives only when there is a serious opposition to the establishment at all levels, but to see an individual writing with such bile and venom against his service raises eyebrows. Presumably these were his views while he was in service, in which case, one wonders how he moved up, and also why he was tolerated in spite of such bitterness and barely-concealed contempt for his own service. If, on the other hand, he developed these views after retirement, one wonders how he is able to face his own hypocrisy, professing one set of views while angling for elevation, and changing them radically when out.

When you cited his note as a former diplomat, it is quite certain that you knew nothing of his background or of his stock line of argument. I can also understand that it might seem bizarre that such opposition could take place from a highly placed official who is now retired.

I do not need to label him as anti-national; that is far too harsh. What I will label him is anti-establishment. His bilious attitude towards his former direct employers is symptomatic of a far deeper malaise; not being professionally trained to respond to such suggestions, I cannot refine this further.

Wait till next year when constructions is gonna restart then they will realize how painful the humiliation really is. Until then let them enjoy this euphoric sensation. In reality Modi and the slumdog military higher ups saw the writing on the wall when our missiles were being transported, signaling a war is coming. That's why the slumdogs unilaterally crapping their pants on their way back to the border.

Please do not use vulgar abuse.

 

[Dungeness]

Wait till next year when constructions is gonna restart then they will realize how painful the humiliation really is. Until then let them enjoy this euphoric sensation. In reality Modi and the slumdog military higher ups saw the writing on the wall when our missiles were being transported, signaling a war is coming. That's why the slumdogs unilaterally crapping their pants on their way back to the border.

To be honest, I do not expect Modi government will come this sense. They will start another media propaganda campaign to make it yet another Victory for Modi. There are plenty of India media outlets that are capable of finding few grains of undigested wheat from a pile of cow dung and spin it into a major achievement, and the gullible Indian masses will continue to buy it.

I haven't read it - I don't have to - but there is a tragi-comic feel. Part of it is due to the author; perhaps you haven't had the doubtful privilege of reading him.

The confrontation should never have happened. It took place only because of the PLA practising its salami tactics on the Sino-Indian borders. It took place because of the very dangerous implications to India - and to Bhutan, far more dangerous in that it sucked that tiny country into the confrontation where it was earlier quite isolated from it - particularly with regard to the Chicken's Neck. That is a fanciful name for the Siliguri Gap, or the Siliguri Corridor, about 20 miles of Indian territory separating Nepal from Bangladesh. But, of course, like all Chinese members, you obviously know all this already.

It was tragic because it showed China at its most pushy and aggressive, moving inch by inch towards its desired position, in steps so small that those opposed do not wish to oppose it by force, so studied and deliberate that by the time the process is in maturity, significant gains and advances have been made. This has been the dilemma of all the countries who found themselves on the business end of Chinese salami-slicing tactics.

It was comic because of the unbelievable happening, of China actually not swallowing up its opposition, of a mutual tacit (or explicit) agreement that a war was not necessary, not desirable. A big reputation is a dangerous thing; it is as good as its last achievement.

I have been reading Bhadrakumar for nearly two decades now, since his retirement in the early 2000s, probably 2001, although his earliest columns are slightly later. Something seems to have blocked his progress to his desired level, because his articles are all anti-establishment; not a bad thing in itself, since a democracy thrives only when there is a serious opposition to the establishment at all levels, but to see an individual writing with such bile and venom against his service raises eyebrows. Presumably these were his views while he was in service, in which case, one wonders how he moved up, and also why he was tolerated in spite of such bitterness and barely-concealed contempt for his own service. If, on the other hand, he developed these views after retirement, one wonders how he is able to face his own hypocrisy, professing one set of views while angling for elevation, and changing them radically when out.

When you cited his note as a former diplomat, it is quite certain that you knew nothing of his background or of his stock line of argument. I can also understand that it might seem bizarre that such opposition could take place from a highly placed official who is now retired.

I do not need to label him as anti-national; that is far too harsh. What I will label him is anti-establishment. His bilious attitude towards his former direct employers is symptomatic of a far deeper malaise; not being professionally trained to respond to such suggestions, I cannot refine this further.



Please do not use vulgar abuse.

Joe, I have read enough Indian side of story, and I understand that India has a legitimate concern for the security of its chick neck, but that doesn't give India a legality to invade Chinese territory. Bhutan was just used as an excuse, both you and I know it.

It seems you are attacking author's personality rather than his points. Interesting shift from what I know about you. RSS' tactic is working, maybe?