Okay...you'll catch up. *Pats in the head*
What’s the India, China Doklam standoff about?
- Thread starter bluesky
- Start date
Banglar Bir
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 7,805
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Chinese media calls for military preparedness
SAM Report, July 29, 2017
Suggesting that India’s move in Doklam carries dangerous overtones, Chinese mainstream media urges their government for military preparedness if situation entails. This call was made in one of the columns of China’s main government newspaper, China Daily by An Gang, a senior researcher of the Pangol think-tank in Beijing. Although traditionally China prefers avoiding confrontation in foreign affairs, mainly for preserving their rapidly growing economy, but on the current Doklam issue Chinese media seems unusually assailing. Previously Global Times, an English news site known as the international spokesperson of Chinese communist party exhorted similar suggestion. Now other media outlets also picking up their trail.
In the China Daily Column An Gang said, in mid-June, Indian troops crossed into China at the Sikkim section of the border, instigating a standoff with Chinese troops. This is arguably the biggest crisis facing the two countries since the 1962 border war, because there is still no sign of the Indian troops ending their trespass into Chinese territory. The Sikkim section of the China-India boundary was delimited in 1890 in the Convention Between Great Britain and China Relating to Sikkim and Tibet, and the boundary demarcation is recognized by both China and India.
According to the column, India claims that a road being constructed by Chinese troops in Chinese territory has “serious” security implications for India. It fears it will lead to the severing of the so-called chicken’s neck – the 20-kilometer-wide corridor that links the Indian mainland to its northeastern states. As a result, New Delhi decided to make a “preemptive” move. Knowing the Chinese border troops will refrain from “firing the first bullet”, Indian soldiers have time and again employed such shady tricks in disputed areas. But this time, New Delhi has sent troops into China’s Donglang area, which is not disputed, and which is nowhere near the trilateral junction that separates China, India and Bhutan. India believes that Beijing would compromise due to the upcoming ninth BRICS Summit in Xiamen, Fujian province. And because of this misperception, New Delhi has been emboldened to “dig in”.
An Gang said, India’s border provocation constitutes a diplomatic and military challenge to China and, to some extent, carries strategic implications for it. With its troops trespassing in Chinese territory, New Delhi has taken a dangerous step by inciting confrontation. So far, China has exercised restraint, but its patience will not last forever. China has repeatedly stated that it will defend its core interests, which include its territorial integrity. China does not have any strategic ambition to manipulate South Asian or Indochinese Peninsula affairs, but that does not mean it will allow its own territory to be encroached upon.
In the China Daily column, it is mentioned that China seeks to handle border issues in line with international laws and documented evidence, but it does not fear a clash on its borders with a neighbor, if that is what is necessary to defend its territory. It has abundant resources to keep the risks controllable should a showdown occur. China can now force illegal intruders back across the border more easily than it did during the 1962 border war. While continuing to be engaged in diplomatic efforts to persuade India to withdraw its troops from Chinese territory, China should be prepared for military action should that prove to be its only recourse. As China has repeatedly emphasized, although the diplomatic channels are unimpeded, the withdrawal of the Indian border troops who have illegally crossed into China’s territory is the prerequisite for any meaningful dialogue between the two sides.
An Gang implied, the crisis is fundamentally an outcome of India’s perception of its geopolitical role and worries about the rise of China, playing up the idea of an all-out geopolitical clash between the two countries is uncalled for. After all, China and India are close neighbors and a healthy bilateral relationship meets the need of both for a favorable environment for development. The two countries should seek to reconcile their border issues and jointly strive to maintain regional stability.
http://southasianmonitor.com/2017/07/29/chinese-media-calls-military-preparedness/
SAM Report, July 29, 2017
Suggesting that India’s move in Doklam carries dangerous overtones, Chinese mainstream media urges their government for military preparedness if situation entails. This call was made in one of the columns of China’s main government newspaper, China Daily by An Gang, a senior researcher of the Pangol think-tank in Beijing. Although traditionally China prefers avoiding confrontation in foreign affairs, mainly for preserving their rapidly growing economy, but on the current Doklam issue Chinese media seems unusually assailing. Previously Global Times, an English news site known as the international spokesperson of Chinese communist party exhorted similar suggestion. Now other media outlets also picking up their trail.
In the China Daily Column An Gang said, in mid-June, Indian troops crossed into China at the Sikkim section of the border, instigating a standoff with Chinese troops. This is arguably the biggest crisis facing the two countries since the 1962 border war, because there is still no sign of the Indian troops ending their trespass into Chinese territory. The Sikkim section of the China-India boundary was delimited in 1890 in the Convention Between Great Britain and China Relating to Sikkim and Tibet, and the boundary demarcation is recognized by both China and India.
According to the column, India claims that a road being constructed by Chinese troops in Chinese territory has “serious” security implications for India. It fears it will lead to the severing of the so-called chicken’s neck – the 20-kilometer-wide corridor that links the Indian mainland to its northeastern states. As a result, New Delhi decided to make a “preemptive” move. Knowing the Chinese border troops will refrain from “firing the first bullet”, Indian soldiers have time and again employed such shady tricks in disputed areas. But this time, New Delhi has sent troops into China’s Donglang area, which is not disputed, and which is nowhere near the trilateral junction that separates China, India and Bhutan. India believes that Beijing would compromise due to the upcoming ninth BRICS Summit in Xiamen, Fujian province. And because of this misperception, New Delhi has been emboldened to “dig in”.
An Gang said, India’s border provocation constitutes a diplomatic and military challenge to China and, to some extent, carries strategic implications for it. With its troops trespassing in Chinese territory, New Delhi has taken a dangerous step by inciting confrontation. So far, China has exercised restraint, but its patience will not last forever. China has repeatedly stated that it will defend its core interests, which include its territorial integrity. China does not have any strategic ambition to manipulate South Asian or Indochinese Peninsula affairs, but that does not mean it will allow its own territory to be encroached upon.
In the China Daily column, it is mentioned that China seeks to handle border issues in line with international laws and documented evidence, but it does not fear a clash on its borders with a neighbor, if that is what is necessary to defend its territory. It has abundant resources to keep the risks controllable should a showdown occur. China can now force illegal intruders back across the border more easily than it did during the 1962 border war. While continuing to be engaged in diplomatic efforts to persuade India to withdraw its troops from Chinese territory, China should be prepared for military action should that prove to be its only recourse. As China has repeatedly emphasized, although the diplomatic channels are unimpeded, the withdrawal of the Indian border troops who have illegally crossed into China’s territory is the prerequisite for any meaningful dialogue between the two sides.
An Gang implied, the crisis is fundamentally an outcome of India’s perception of its geopolitical role and worries about the rise of China, playing up the idea of an all-out geopolitical clash between the two countries is uncalled for. After all, China and India are close neighbors and a healthy bilateral relationship meets the need of both for a favorable environment for development. The two countries should seek to reconcile their border issues and jointly strive to maintain regional stability.
http://southasianmonitor.com/2017/07/29/chinese-media-calls-military-preparedness/
Radio Mirchi
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2017
- Messages
- 509
- Reaction score
- -6
- Country
- Location
When a tiger fights he does not seek any help from the sheep.
Cant say if chinese media is shooting using its government's shoulders or the chinese government is shooting using its media's shoulders but they have lost the Dokalam stand off. Now the chinese should come out with some mischief in J&K to save their face. Pakistan should be ready to do a Bhutan for China.Chinese media calls for military preparedness
SAM Report, July 29, 2017
Suggesting that India’s move in Doklam carries dangerous overtones, Chinese mainstream media urges their government for military preparedness if situation entails. This call was made in one of the columns of China’s main government newspaper, China Daily by An Gang, a senior researcher of the Pangol think-tank in Beijing. Although traditionally China prefers avoiding confrontation in foreign affairs, mainly for preserving their rapidly growing economy, but on the current Doklam issue Chinese media seems unusually assailing. Previously Global Times, an English news site known as the international spokesperson of Chinese communist party exhorted similar suggestion. Now other media outlets also picking up their trail.
In the China Daily Column An Gang said, in mid-June, Indian troops crossed into China at the Sikkim section of the border, instigating a standoff with Chinese troops. This is arguably the biggest crisis facing the two countries since the 1962 border war, because there is still no sign of the Indian troops ending their trespass into Chinese territory. The Sikkim section of the China-India boundary was delimited in 1890 in the Convention Between Great Britain and China Relating to Sikkim and Tibet, and the boundary demarcation is recognized by both China and India.
According to the column, India claims that a road being constructed by Chinese troops in Chinese territory has “serious” security implications for India. It fears it will lead to the severing of the so-called chicken’s neck – the 20-kilometer-wide corridor that links the Indian mainland to its northeastern states. As a result, New Delhi decided to make a “preemptive” move. Knowing the Chinese border troops will refrain from “firing the first bullet”, Indian soldiers have time and again employed such shady tricks in disputed areas. But this time, New Delhi has sent troops into China’s Donglang area, which is not disputed, and which is nowhere near the trilateral junction that separates China, India and Bhutan. India believes that Beijing would compromise due to the upcoming ninth BRICS Summit in Xiamen, Fujian province. And because of this misperception, New Delhi has been emboldened to “dig in”.
An Gang said, India’s border provocation constitutes a diplomatic and military challenge to China and, to some extent, carries strategic implications for it. With its troops trespassing in Chinese territory, New Delhi has taken a dangerous step by inciting confrontation. So far, China has exercised restraint, but its patience will not last forever. China has repeatedly stated that it will defend its core interests, which include its territorial integrity. China does not have any strategic ambition to manipulate South Asian or Indochinese Peninsula affairs, but that does not mean it will allow its own territory to be encroached upon.
In the China Daily column, it is mentioned that China seeks to handle border issues in line with international laws and documented evidence, but it does not fear a clash on its borders with a neighbor, if that is what is necessary to defend its territory. It has abundant resources to keep the risks controllable should a showdown occur. China can now force illegal intruders back across the border more easily than it did during the 1962 border war. While continuing to be engaged in diplomatic efforts to persuade India to withdraw its troops from Chinese territory, China should be prepared for military action should that prove to be its only recourse. As China has repeatedly emphasized, although the diplomatic channels are unimpeded, the withdrawal of the Indian border troops who have illegally crossed into China’s territory is the prerequisite for any meaningful dialogue between the two sides.
An Gang implied, the crisis is fundamentally an outcome of India’s perception of its geopolitical role and worries about the rise of China, playing up the idea of an all-out geopolitical clash between the two countries is uncalled for. After all, China and India are close neighbors and a healthy bilateral relationship meets the need of both for a favorable environment for development. The two countries should seek to reconcile their border issues and jointly strive to maintain regional stability.
http://southasianmonitor.com/2017/07/29/chinese-media-calls-military-preparedness/
Our Muktis have seen you tiger who fought behind them and supported the Muktis with big guns in the 1971 war. Today, you have entered Chinese land by appeasing the USA without really understanding the fall out. BD is not here to play sheep. Do not you see how China has supplied us with their modern arms so that Bd can stop India from trespassing in times of emergency. We are not Bhutan and do not play tiger with us.
Last edited:
Radio Mirchi
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2017
- Messages
- 509
- Reaction score
- -6
- Country
- Location
What the tiger did to you in 1971, he is doing the same to Bhutan.
When a tiger moves, the sheep should be concerned for her safety and well being.
A hoof remains a hoof no matter how much you sharpen it.
Every one knows the history of Indian involvement in the 1971 war. India wanted to divide Pakistan into two with a minimal action by its troops. This is how there were only 1300 IA sacrifice.
That is call smartness. Muktis were trained and were obviously the first line of defence to recover our training costs.
Banglar Bir
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 7,805
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
China-India stand-off ‘has to do with Bhutan’
Nirmala Ganapathy, New Delhi, July 29, 2017
For more than a month, Indian and Chinese troops have been squaring off over a small Himalayan plateau in the worst military stand-off in years between the Asian giants.
The cold, remote Doklam Plateau is claimed by China and Bhutan. But Beijing and New Delhi, which is supporting Bhutan’s claim to Doklam, have shown no sign of backing down and no diplomatic solution is immediately in sight. Yet tiny Bhutan, the landlocked Himalayan nation at the centre of the row, has largely maintained its silence.
Some analysts believe the stand-off is really about Bhutan, a country that is India’s closest ally in the region but which has also been on China’s radar. Bhutan does not have diplomatic ties with China.
The nation acts as a buffer between India and China, which fought a brief border war in 1962 that India lost. The two nations have disputes in several areas along a 4,000km border.
Doklam is also near the junction of India, China and Bhutan, and close to the so-called chicken’s neck – a 20km-wide corridor that links the Indian mainland to its seven north-eastern states.
The stand-off was triggered by Chinese construction of a road on the Doklam Plateau. On June 16, India sent troops into the area, with China claiming Indian soldiers halted the construction. New Delhi has said the road construction threatens India’s security.
“It is not just the Doklam border issue. The entire thing is about focusing on Bhutan… to change the status quo or create a rift between India and Bhutan… that is the real game,” Professor Phunchok Stobdan, senior fellow at India’s Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, told The Straits Times.
“A whole lot depends on how Bhutan responds. Maybe they want to have a neutral status, which is (at present) so much in favour of India. China wants it to change, but the question is: Do the Bhutanese also want to change it?”
Since the stand-off started, Bhutan’s foreign ministry has released just one statement urging China to maintain the status quo, while lodging a protest with China over the road construction.
Former Indian foreign secretary Lalit Mansingh believes China wants to establish ties with Bhutan, which has not joined China’s One Belt One Road initiative.
“With the One Belt One Road project, China has managed to get the support of all our neighbours with the exception of Bhutan… out of loyalty for India, Bhutan has not joined the project,” Mr Mansingh said. “India has invested in Bhutan and is buying power (electricity) from them. The former king had no doubt that it was in the best interest of Bhutan to keep relations with India as close as possible. And that has continued. And the Chinese… want to create a rift.”
THE REAL GAME
It is not just the Doklam border issue. The entire thing is about focusing on Bhutan… to change the status quo or create a rift between India and Bhutan… that is the real game. A whole lot depends on how Bhutan responds.
PROFESSOR PHUNCHOK STOBDAN, senior fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, on the real issue behind the China-India dispute.
Most people in Bhutan support close ties with India, but there are sections of society who feel that Bhutan needs to establish diplomatic links with China.
Bhutan, with a population of 797,765, was cloistered for many years and started opening up slowly to the world only a decade ago.
Ties between India and Bhutan have been guided by a friendship treaty that, till 2007, said India would guide Bhutan’s foreign policy. In 2007, that was updated to close cooperation on foreign policy matters.
Still, the current border dispute has unnerved the Himalayan country, which does not want to be drawn into a row between its two large neighbours
“I would say Bhutan has done well, so far, to avoid both the fire from the Dragon on our heads and also the Elephants’ tusks in our soft underbelly,” wrote Mr Tenzing Lamsang, editor of The Bhutanese newspaper in an opinion piece on July 8.
Part of India’s military response can be explained by the government’s concern over China’s growing influence in the region. China has bankrolled massive projects, from developing a port in Sri Lanka to upgrading infrastructure in a disputed area in Pakistan that is claimed by India.
With Bhutan at the centre, the stand-off looks nowhere near being resolved. Both sides have refused to step back and have, instead, urged the other to withdraw troops.
Analysts believe the stand-off would continue till the Chinese Communist Party holds its 19th National Congress, where President Xi Jinping is up for re-election. “I don’t see any flexibility in the Chinese position till the 19th Congress in November is over,” noted former national security adviser Shiv Shankar Menon, speaking to the Indian Association of Foreign Affairs Correspondents recently.
Mr Mansingh said: “I think China will keep talking tough till the Congress. Xi Jinping would not want to be seen as weak. When winter comes, the heights are automatically off limits to armed forces as the place is covered with snow. They (both sides) will automatically withdraw.”
http://southasianmonitor.com/2017/07/29/china-india-stand-off-bhutan/
Nirmala Ganapathy, New Delhi, July 29, 2017
For more than a month, Indian and Chinese troops have been squaring off over a small Himalayan plateau in the worst military stand-off in years between the Asian giants.
The cold, remote Doklam Plateau is claimed by China and Bhutan. But Beijing and New Delhi, which is supporting Bhutan’s claim to Doklam, have shown no sign of backing down and no diplomatic solution is immediately in sight. Yet tiny Bhutan, the landlocked Himalayan nation at the centre of the row, has largely maintained its silence.
Some analysts believe the stand-off is really about Bhutan, a country that is India’s closest ally in the region but which has also been on China’s radar. Bhutan does not have diplomatic ties with China.
The nation acts as a buffer between India and China, which fought a brief border war in 1962 that India lost. The two nations have disputes in several areas along a 4,000km border.
Doklam is also near the junction of India, China and Bhutan, and close to the so-called chicken’s neck – a 20km-wide corridor that links the Indian mainland to its seven north-eastern states.
The stand-off was triggered by Chinese construction of a road on the Doklam Plateau. On June 16, India sent troops into the area, with China claiming Indian soldiers halted the construction. New Delhi has said the road construction threatens India’s security.
“It is not just the Doklam border issue. The entire thing is about focusing on Bhutan… to change the status quo or create a rift between India and Bhutan… that is the real game,” Professor Phunchok Stobdan, senior fellow at India’s Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, told The Straits Times.
“A whole lot depends on how Bhutan responds. Maybe they want to have a neutral status, which is (at present) so much in favour of India. China wants it to change, but the question is: Do the Bhutanese also want to change it?”
Since the stand-off started, Bhutan’s foreign ministry has released just one statement urging China to maintain the status quo, while lodging a protest with China over the road construction.
Former Indian foreign secretary Lalit Mansingh believes China wants to establish ties with Bhutan, which has not joined China’s One Belt One Road initiative.
“With the One Belt One Road project, China has managed to get the support of all our neighbours with the exception of Bhutan… out of loyalty for India, Bhutan has not joined the project,” Mr Mansingh said. “India has invested in Bhutan and is buying power (electricity) from them. The former king had no doubt that it was in the best interest of Bhutan to keep relations with India as close as possible. And that has continued. And the Chinese… want to create a rift.”
THE REAL GAME
It is not just the Doklam border issue. The entire thing is about focusing on Bhutan… to change the status quo or create a rift between India and Bhutan… that is the real game. A whole lot depends on how Bhutan responds.
PROFESSOR PHUNCHOK STOBDAN, senior fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, on the real issue behind the China-India dispute.
Most people in Bhutan support close ties with India, but there are sections of society who feel that Bhutan needs to establish diplomatic links with China.
Bhutan, with a population of 797,765, was cloistered for many years and started opening up slowly to the world only a decade ago.
Ties between India and Bhutan have been guided by a friendship treaty that, till 2007, said India would guide Bhutan’s foreign policy. In 2007, that was updated to close cooperation on foreign policy matters.
Still, the current border dispute has unnerved the Himalayan country, which does not want to be drawn into a row between its two large neighbours
“I would say Bhutan has done well, so far, to avoid both the fire from the Dragon on our heads and also the Elephants’ tusks in our soft underbelly,” wrote Mr Tenzing Lamsang, editor of The Bhutanese newspaper in an opinion piece on July 8.
Part of India’s military response can be explained by the government’s concern over China’s growing influence in the region. China has bankrolled massive projects, from developing a port in Sri Lanka to upgrading infrastructure in a disputed area in Pakistan that is claimed by India.
With Bhutan at the centre, the stand-off looks nowhere near being resolved. Both sides have refused to step back and have, instead, urged the other to withdraw troops.
Analysts believe the stand-off would continue till the Chinese Communist Party holds its 19th National Congress, where President Xi Jinping is up for re-election. “I don’t see any flexibility in the Chinese position till the 19th Congress in November is over,” noted former national security adviser Shiv Shankar Menon, speaking to the Indian Association of Foreign Affairs Correspondents recently.
Mr Mansingh said: “I think China will keep talking tough till the Congress. Xi Jinping would not want to be seen as weak. When winter comes, the heights are automatically off limits to armed forces as the place is covered with snow. They (both sides) will automatically withdraw.”
http://southasianmonitor.com/2017/07/29/china-india-stand-off-bhutan/
Well then fight to your heart's content. As for BD, we can't afford to get caught up in any conflict.
Radio Mirchi
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2017
- Messages
- 509
- Reaction score
- -6
- Country
- Location
now you are talking sense.
After the war, the IA troops stole 2,300 Crore Taka ($4.8 billion) worth of PA military hardware and took them to India. These were BD goodies. So, India has long been compensated for the training cost. However, the purpose of stealing was certainly not to get compensated, it was to cripple the future of BD military forces.
Banglar Bir
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 7,805
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
To counter and China and Pakistan, India and Israel cooperation
Banglar Bir
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 7,805
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
China, India torn between silk roads and cocked guns
Published: 00:05, Jul 28,2017
Pakistan’s prime minister Nawaz Sharif speaks at the inauguration of the China-Pakistan Economoic Corridor port in Gwadar, Pakistan on November 13, 2016. — Reuters/Caren Firouz
The current stand-off at Doklam, or Donglang, is little more than a sideshow in the bigger picture as South Asia’s tectonic plates shift in a direction that makes New Delhi’s resistance to China’s Belt and Road Initiative look increasingly futile, writes Pepe Escobar
SO, ONCE again it’s down to a face-off in the Himalayas. Beijing builds a road in the disputed territory of Doklam (if you’re Indian) or Donglang (if you’re Chinese), in the tri-junction of Sikkim, Tibet and Bhutan, and all hell breaks loose. Or does it?
The Global Times blames it on an upsurge of Hindu nationalist fervour, but selected Indian officials prefer to privilege ongoing quiet diplomacy. After all, when Chinese president Xi Jinping and Indian prime minister Narendra Modi met on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Astana last month, they struck a gentleman’s agreement; this dispute is not supposed to escalate, and there’s got to be a mutually face saving solution.
The tri-junction drama is actually a minor tremor in the much larger picture of the ongoing geopolitical tectonic shift in Eurasia. The major subplot occurs in the conjunction between the inexorable momentum of the New Silk Roads, aka China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s push, these past nine years, to assert itself as a major naval power in the Indian Ocean.
In a nutshell, India could not but be deeply disturbed by China becoming a decisive front row player across South Asia — including in that Maritime Silk Road superhighway, the Indian Ocean.
The first-ever railway in Tibet, opened eleven years ago, links Lhasa with Xining, in northwest China. This railway will inevitably proceed all the way to Kathmandu, and assuming an OK from New Delhi — not on the cards for the time being — to north India as well. The key element of the New Silk Roads is Eurasian connectivity. And Beijing is the super-connector, not Delhi, with the scale and scope of BRI implying at least $1 trillion in short-term investment alone.
When India looks around, to its east or to its west, what it sees is China connecting everything from Dhaka in Bangladesh to Bandar Abbas in Iran.
We’re talking about the interpenetration of the China-Indochina Peninsula Economic Corridor; the China-Indian Ocean-Africa-Mediterranean Sea Blue Economic Passage; the China-Pakistan Corridor; and the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar Economic Corridor. To call all this an orgy of connectivity is an understatement.
Enter ‘BRICS-Plus’
HINDU nationalism qualifies South Asia and the Indian Ocean as an indisputable sphere of influence for Indian civilization — and one not that dissimilar to China’s in relation to the South China Sea. Borders are scrutinized to the millimeter, especially now that the success of BRI is at stake.
The Doklam/Donglang stand-off pales, however, in comparison with the real danger zone. New Delhi argues that CPEC will be transiting an illegal territory, described in India as ‘Pak-occupied Kashmir.’
South Asia happens to be all for BRI — with the wary self-exception of India. New Delhi refused to attend the recent BRI forum in Beijing, issuing an official statement: ‘No country can accept a project that ignores its core concerns on sovereignty and territorial integrity.’
New Delhi’s boycott actually betrays the fact it has seen the writing on the wall. Pakistan is destined to ‘link together a series of Eurasian economic blocs’, including the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union. And this connectivity feast will also boost the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation), which, crucially, both India and Pakistan have just joined.
The following proposal, from the chief economist of the Eurasian Development Bank, offers immense food for thought: the BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) should be enlarged to a BRICS+ or BRICS++. Beijing enthusiastically agrees — it has, in fact, proposed its own ‘BRICS-Plus’ idea to unite various BRI partners. Pakistan, as host of the CPEC connectivity corridor, would certainly be in line for ‘BRICS-Plus’ membership.
So we have China and India as members of BRICS (including the bloc’s New Development Bank), the SCO, the AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank), and of the G-20, and India and Pakistan as members of the SCO. And then we have all three nations as members of a future BRICS-Plus. It all points towards interpenetration, inter-connectivity and advanced Eurasian integration.
To allow Hindu nationalism to block New Delhi’s involvement in BRI would be counter-productive, to put it mildly. China-India bilateral trade was US$70.08 billion last year. China is India’s top trading partner.
Still, India launched an attempt at a counter-offensive last month when it joined the United Nations TIR convention, a global customs transit system with huge geographical coverage. India’s TIR gambit covers only Bangladesh, Nepal, and Bhutan, however. To think this might dent the appeal of BRI — with its massive funds, support from the Silk Road Fund, the AIIB and further on down the road, private financing (from East and West) – is, frankly, naïve wishful thinking.
Stuff BRI, we’ve got AAGC
BRI is a juggernaut that has evolved over the past four years and is finally ready to launch its full connectivity firepower. Compare its resources with India’s infrastructure predicament, its jungle of red-tape, its lack of funds for Eurasia-wide projects, and even the fact that its GDP growth dropped below China’s in 2016.
There’s also that pesky geopolitical open secret — that Pakistan constitutes a de facto Great Wall blocking India’s land route to the West and its expansion across Central Asia. New Delhi is trying to circumvent these facts on the ground by all means available.
These include the International North South Transport Corridor, founded in September 2000 by India, Iran and Russia, and which could potentially connect India to Europe via the Persian Gulf; investing in a trade corridor between the Iranian port of Chabahar and Afghanistan; trying to copy BRI via its TIR gambit, but on the cheap, without massive investment in infrastructure. And, to counter what New Delhi brands BRI’s ‘Sinocentrism’, there’s its purported trump card, unveiled by Modi himself at the general meeting of the African Development Bank in the capital of Gujarat last May – the Asia-Africa Growth Corridor, supported by Japan.
The AAGC has been spun by India as a project ‘acceptable for the banking sector’, as opposed to BRI’s ‘government-funded model.’ In theory, the AAGC is about Asia-Africa integration. Japan brings its expertise technology and infrastructure building, India its ‘experience in Africa.’
The AAGC was duly derided in Beijing as a New Delhi-Tokyo scheme — aided and abetted by Washington — to sabotage China’s drive towards Eurasian integration. The case can certainly be made. New Delhi’s multiple strategies, so far, have yielded more rhetoric than action. Soon it may all come down to ‘if you can’t beat them, join them.’ The ball is in the Hindu nationalist court.
Asia Times, July 25. Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for Asia Times and an analyst for the Real News Network. His latest book is Obama does Globalistan.
http://www.newagebd.net/article/20669/china-india-torn-between-silk-roads-and-cocked-guns
Published: 00:05, Jul 28,2017
Pakistan’s prime minister Nawaz Sharif speaks at the inauguration of the China-Pakistan Economoic Corridor port in Gwadar, Pakistan on November 13, 2016. — Reuters/Caren Firouz
The current stand-off at Doklam, or Donglang, is little more than a sideshow in the bigger picture as South Asia’s tectonic plates shift in a direction that makes New Delhi’s resistance to China’s Belt and Road Initiative look increasingly futile, writes Pepe Escobar
SO, ONCE again it’s down to a face-off in the Himalayas. Beijing builds a road in the disputed territory of Doklam (if you’re Indian) or Donglang (if you’re Chinese), in the tri-junction of Sikkim, Tibet and Bhutan, and all hell breaks loose. Or does it?
The Global Times blames it on an upsurge of Hindu nationalist fervour, but selected Indian officials prefer to privilege ongoing quiet diplomacy. After all, when Chinese president Xi Jinping and Indian prime minister Narendra Modi met on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Astana last month, they struck a gentleman’s agreement; this dispute is not supposed to escalate, and there’s got to be a mutually face saving solution.
The tri-junction drama is actually a minor tremor in the much larger picture of the ongoing geopolitical tectonic shift in Eurasia. The major subplot occurs in the conjunction between the inexorable momentum of the New Silk Roads, aka China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s push, these past nine years, to assert itself as a major naval power in the Indian Ocean.
In a nutshell, India could not but be deeply disturbed by China becoming a decisive front row player across South Asia — including in that Maritime Silk Road superhighway, the Indian Ocean.
The first-ever railway in Tibet, opened eleven years ago, links Lhasa with Xining, in northwest China. This railway will inevitably proceed all the way to Kathmandu, and assuming an OK from New Delhi — not on the cards for the time being — to north India as well. The key element of the New Silk Roads is Eurasian connectivity. And Beijing is the super-connector, not Delhi, with the scale and scope of BRI implying at least $1 trillion in short-term investment alone.
When India looks around, to its east or to its west, what it sees is China connecting everything from Dhaka in Bangladesh to Bandar Abbas in Iran.
We’re talking about the interpenetration of the China-Indochina Peninsula Economic Corridor; the China-Indian Ocean-Africa-Mediterranean Sea Blue Economic Passage; the China-Pakistan Corridor; and the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar Economic Corridor. To call all this an orgy of connectivity is an understatement.
Enter ‘BRICS-Plus’
HINDU nationalism qualifies South Asia and the Indian Ocean as an indisputable sphere of influence for Indian civilization — and one not that dissimilar to China’s in relation to the South China Sea. Borders are scrutinized to the millimeter, especially now that the success of BRI is at stake.
The Doklam/Donglang stand-off pales, however, in comparison with the real danger zone. New Delhi argues that CPEC will be transiting an illegal territory, described in India as ‘Pak-occupied Kashmir.’
South Asia happens to be all for BRI — with the wary self-exception of India. New Delhi refused to attend the recent BRI forum in Beijing, issuing an official statement: ‘No country can accept a project that ignores its core concerns on sovereignty and territorial integrity.’
New Delhi’s boycott actually betrays the fact it has seen the writing on the wall. Pakistan is destined to ‘link together a series of Eurasian economic blocs’, including the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union. And this connectivity feast will also boost the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation), which, crucially, both India and Pakistan have just joined.
The following proposal, from the chief economist of the Eurasian Development Bank, offers immense food for thought: the BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) should be enlarged to a BRICS+ or BRICS++. Beijing enthusiastically agrees — it has, in fact, proposed its own ‘BRICS-Plus’ idea to unite various BRI partners. Pakistan, as host of the CPEC connectivity corridor, would certainly be in line for ‘BRICS-Plus’ membership.
So we have China and India as members of BRICS (including the bloc’s New Development Bank), the SCO, the AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank), and of the G-20, and India and Pakistan as members of the SCO. And then we have all three nations as members of a future BRICS-Plus. It all points towards interpenetration, inter-connectivity and advanced Eurasian integration.
To allow Hindu nationalism to block New Delhi’s involvement in BRI would be counter-productive, to put it mildly. China-India bilateral trade was US$70.08 billion last year. China is India’s top trading partner.
Still, India launched an attempt at a counter-offensive last month when it joined the United Nations TIR convention, a global customs transit system with huge geographical coverage. India’s TIR gambit covers only Bangladesh, Nepal, and Bhutan, however. To think this might dent the appeal of BRI — with its massive funds, support from the Silk Road Fund, the AIIB and further on down the road, private financing (from East and West) – is, frankly, naïve wishful thinking.
Stuff BRI, we’ve got AAGC
BRI is a juggernaut that has evolved over the past four years and is finally ready to launch its full connectivity firepower. Compare its resources with India’s infrastructure predicament, its jungle of red-tape, its lack of funds for Eurasia-wide projects, and even the fact that its GDP growth dropped below China’s in 2016.
There’s also that pesky geopolitical open secret — that Pakistan constitutes a de facto Great Wall blocking India’s land route to the West and its expansion across Central Asia. New Delhi is trying to circumvent these facts on the ground by all means available.
These include the International North South Transport Corridor, founded in September 2000 by India, Iran and Russia, and which could potentially connect India to Europe via the Persian Gulf; investing in a trade corridor between the Iranian port of Chabahar and Afghanistan; trying to copy BRI via its TIR gambit, but on the cheap, without massive investment in infrastructure. And, to counter what New Delhi brands BRI’s ‘Sinocentrism’, there’s its purported trump card, unveiled by Modi himself at the general meeting of the African Development Bank in the capital of Gujarat last May – the Asia-Africa Growth Corridor, supported by Japan.
The AAGC has been spun by India as a project ‘acceptable for the banking sector’, as opposed to BRI’s ‘government-funded model.’ In theory, the AAGC is about Asia-Africa integration. Japan brings its expertise technology and infrastructure building, India its ‘experience in Africa.’
The AAGC was duly derided in Beijing as a New Delhi-Tokyo scheme — aided and abetted by Washington — to sabotage China’s drive towards Eurasian integration. The case can certainly be made. New Delhi’s multiple strategies, so far, have yielded more rhetoric than action. Soon it may all come down to ‘if you can’t beat them, join them.’ The ball is in the Hindu nationalist court.
Asia Times, July 25. Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for Asia Times and an analyst for the Real News Network. His latest book is Obama does Globalistan.
http://www.newagebd.net/article/20669/china-india-torn-between-silk-roads-and-cocked-guns
Banglar Bir
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 7,805
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
ডোকলাম থেকে ভারতীয় সেনা তাড়াতে অভিযান চালানোর পরিকল্পনা চীনের
ডোকলাম এলাকা থেকে ভারতীয় সৈন্যদের দু’সপ্তাহের মধ্যে বিতাড়িত করতে সংক্ষিপ্ত আকারে সামরিক অভিযান চালনোর পরিকল্পনা করছে চীন।
আজ শনিবার চীনের রাষ্ট্র নিয়ন্ত্রিত একটি দৈনিকের প্রবন্ধে এ তথ্য জানানো হয়।
সাংহাই অ্যাকাডেমি অব সোস্যাল সায়েন্সেসের ইন্সটিটিউট অব ইন্টারন্যাশনাল রিলেশন্সের গবেষক হু ঝিয়াং গ্লোবাল টাইমসে লেখা প্রবন্ধে একথা উল্লেখ করেন।
তিনি বলেন, চীনের অভ্যন্তরে ভারতীয় সেনাদের অবস্থান কোনোভাবেই মেনে নেবে না বেইজিং। সম্ভবত দু’সপ্তাহের মধ্যে সেখান থেকে ভারতীয় সেনাদের বিতাড়িত করার জন্য সংক্ষিপ্ত আকারে সামরিক অভিযান চালাবে চীন।
তিনি আরো উল্লেখ করেন, চীনের পক্ষ থেকে অভিযান চালানোর আগে ভারতের পররাষ্ট্র মন্ত্রণালয়কে জানানো হবে।
ভুটান সীমান্তে চীনের রাস্তা নির্মাণ নিয়ে ১৬ জুন থেকে সিকিম সেক্টরে ভারত-চীনের মধ্যে টান টান উত্তেজনা বিরাজ করছে। ভুটানের দাবি ডকলাম তাদের ভূখণ্ডেরই একটি অংশ। চীন সেখানে রাস্তা নির্মাণ করে চুক্তি লঙ্ঘন করেছে।
এদিকে ভারতের দাবি, সেখানে চীন রাস্তা নির্মাণ করলে ভারতের অখণ্ডতা লঙ্ঘিত হবে। চীনের এটা একতরফা সিদ্ধান্ত, যা কোনোভাবেই মেনে নেয়া হবে না। আগে থেকেই প্রতিবেশী দেশ ভুটানে ভারতের সেনা মোতায়েন রয়েছে। রাস্তা নির্মাণকে কেন্দ্র করে অতিরিক্ত সেনা মোতায়েন করেছে দেশটি।
তবে ভারতের দাবি, তারা বাড়তি কোনো সেনা সেখানে মোতায়েন করেনি। সম্প্রতি সিকিম সীমান্ত দিয়ে ভারতীয় সৈন্য অনুপ্রবেশের অভিযোগ করেছে বেইজিং। তারপর চীনের সেনারা ভারতের ভিতরে প্রবেশ করে মানুষজনকে ঘরবাড়ি ছেড়ে চলে যাওয়ার হুমকি দেয়। সূত্র: টাইমস অব ইন্ডিয়া
http://www.dailynayadiganta.com/detail/news/241669
Banglar Bir
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 7,805
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
China won’t use Lanka’s location for its strategic needs, assures envoy
P K Balachandran, August 7, 2017
Yi Xianliang, Chinese Ambassador in Sri Lanka
China will never use Sri Lanka’s strategic location in the Indian Ocean for its strategic and security needs, the Chinese Ambassador to Sri Lanka, Yi Xianliang, said here on Saturday.
“From over a 1000 years ago, Sri Lanka has enjoyed its strategic location because the island is in the middle of the silk route. However, the question is how do you use your potential? How do you make use of this opportunity which you have? The main answer is peace and development. So, China will take every efforts to support Sri Lanka’s economic and social development. That is the need of the people of Sri Lanka. We will never use this advantage of Sri Lanka for our strategic or security needs,” Yi said while welcoming the Chinese navy’s hospital ship, Ark Peace, at the harbor here.
“We support Sri Lanka’s development. You can check what China has done in Sri Lanka in the past. We have built infrastructure, hospitals, airport, harbour. Sri Lanka also is the first country to get the largest donation and financial assistance from China.”
“We do not have any navy soldiers or any other soldiers in Sri Lanka. We have no intelligence in Sri Lanka. We have no such people present in Sri Lanka except the Chinese diplomats present here and I am the representative of China to Sri Lanka.”
“But we have so many CEOs, Engineers, businessmen, teachers, professors in Sri Lanka. What are they doing here? They are strengthening the cooperation between China and Sri Lanka and assist Sri Lanka and develop this island country and develop the economy and social affairs. We do what we say and we have kept our promise. So trust the Chinese as we are true friends of Sri Lanka,” Yi said.
Lanka to Buy Chinese Ships
Commander Sanath Uthpala, commander of the Sri Lankan navy’s Western Command said that Sri Lanka would be interested in buying Chinese ships and that some Lankan naval personnel would be going to China in September for training.
The Commander of PLA Navy Hospital Ship Ark Peace, Rear Admiral Guan Bai Lin, said that during the ship’s three-day sojourn in Colombo, the general could visit the ship and even seek medical treatment.
PLA Navy Hospital Ship Ark Peace has 381 officers on board and since it was commissioned in 2008, it has visited 29 countries, sailed 170,000 nautical miles and medically treated 12,000 people in various countries.
The ship, praised as an ‘Envoy of Peace’ has 300 sick beds, eight operating theatres, a severe burns ward, an ICU, a dental section, and out-patient service and many other medical facilities. It has even been able to perform sophisticated surgeries.
http://southasianmonitor.com/2017/0...ankas-location-strategic-needs-assures-envoy/
What does the China-India standoff mean for Bangladesh?
Syed Zainul AbedinAshis Biswas Shahariar Sajib
Published at 02:47 AM August 07, 2017
Photo: PTI
The two countries have never been so close to a confrontational situation since 1962
Chinese and Indian military forces have been in a standoff in the Doklam area at the tri-junction of the India-China-Bhutan border. The latest round of dispute started on June 18, 2017 when Indian troops opposed the building of a road by Chinese forces at Doklam, which is under China’s control but is claimed by Bhutan.
The two countries have never been so close to a confrontational situation since 1962.
The crisis began when China claimed the Doklam plateau, located in the north of Bhutan, as part of its territory, to build a link road which would allow China access to the Chumbi valley from where the Siliguri Corridor, aka Chicken’s Neck Corridor of India, would be within the range of Chinese artillery.
Apart from its responsibility to maintain Bhutan’s territorial integrity as part of a long-term agreement, India would never want to lose its control over the Siliguri Corridor as it is the sole route that connects the northeast of India with the rest of the country.
The standoff between the two mighty neighbours puts Bangladesh in precarious situation, not in the least because it has extensive ties with both countries on the political, economic and military front.
Security experts in Bangladesh and India are already speculating that in the event China takes the Doklam plateau, India would want to use Bangladesh as a transit for military purposes, which would leave Bangladesh in a serious predicament.
The international border between India and China at Nathu La Pass, Sikkim Courtesy
Bangladesh is heavily dependent on India for water, trade, and even food security, not to mention the two countries share a more than 4,000km border, one of the largest borders between two countries.
On the flip side, China is en route to becoming the single largest individual investor in Bangladesh. Recently, the two countries have signed a $13.6bn worth of deals in trade and investment, and China has promised to provide Bangladesh with a loan assistance of $20bn. Ever since the fiasco surrounding the financing of the Padma Bridge project, Bangladesh has become increasingly dependent on China for its infrastructure and development projects. According to Bangladesh government statistics, a total of $61 million was channelled from China into Bangladesh as foreign direct investment in 2016.
Being a relatively weaker country in what can become a reasonably volatile region, Bangladesh cannot afford to put all the eggs in one basket. It is also not clear that how long India’s Nehruvian defence policy would last, especially amidst the ongoing rise of right wing politics in India, with BJP often playing up anti-Bangladesh sentiments in the east and northeastern India.
Surrounded by a highly militarised zone – northeastern India and a semi-hostile neighbour in Myanmar – Bangladesh needs some degree of military preparation in the event it finds itself in any worst-case scenario. In that case, ironically, Bangladesh would have to resort to Chinese armaments for their affordability and reasonable standard. Recently, Bangladesh has procured two submarines from China for $203 million. On the flipside, Bangladesh signed a comprehensive defence agreement with India during the Prime Minister’s latest tour to India. Although details of the agreement are yet to be made public, media reports suggest the India’s underlying motive for the agreement is to have some sort of supervision over Bangladesh’s defense cooperation with China.
Not all is however lost for Bangladesh. There are a couple of scenarios which could lead both the parties to avoid such hostility. Firstly, India is a whopping $1.2bn market for Chinese goods and products. Secondly, the growing Indian economy will go through massive infrastructural development for which it would have to resort to Chinese products and technology. Thirdly, both of the countries might stay away from engaging in a conflict fearing prolonged regional instability and involvement of other foreign nations.
According to security expert Maj Gen (retd) Abdur Rashid, the area of contention is very remote and almost impassable as it remains under snow for eight months in a year. As a result, the cost for operating a war in that region would be huge for both the countries.
“But if the countries do engage in war, it may cause regional polarisation throughout Asia. Japan and the ASEAN states might take the side of India owing to the aggressive advancement of China towards the South China Sea.”
“In that case, it would be difficult for China to carry out the One Belt, One Road initiative,” the security expert added.
The risk of a confrontation cannot be completely ruled out as it involves the image of China at the global level.
M Shahiduzzaman, a professor of International Relations at Dhaka University told the Dhaka Tribune: “If China compromises on the issue of Doklam, it has to compromise on its territorial claims forever, including Arunachal.”
He also opined that India’s economy would collapse within a week if it goes to a war with China.
According to former ambassador Humayun Kabir, both the conflicting parties should consider the interest of Bhutan as it would suffer the most should any confrontation take place.
“India is pressing the Bhutanese government to get back to the Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal motor vehicles agreement (BBIN MVA) on one hand, while China is looking forward to building a link road in its territory, on the other. But no one is considering the threat to Bhutan’s integrity because of these projects,” the former diplomat added.
Government officials of Bangladesh however said the BBIN agreement may end up being a connecting route between Bangladesh and India, as Bhutan and Nepal has already expressed reluctance to be a part of this endeavour.
http://www.dhakatribune.com/banglad...7/08/07/china-india-standoff-mean-bangladesh/
China takes up Doklam issue with Nepal
HIGHLIGHTS
Chinese deputy chief of mission discussed the Doklam issue with his Nepal counterpart
India has so far not made it public whether or not it has briefed foreign missions
Sushma Swaraj will visit Nepal next week for the BIMSTEC meeting
NEW DELHI: China's diplomatic blitz to counter India's position on Doklam standoff high up in the Himalayas continues, with its mission here briefing Nepal authorities about the dispute.
China's decision to discuss the issue with Nepal is significant because, first, India shares a tri-junction with Nepal and China in a disputed area and, second, Nepal is one country in the neighbourhood India is struggling to maintain its sphere of influence.
Diplomatic sources told TOI that the Chinese deputy chief of mission discussed the Doklam issue with his newly-appointed Nepal counterpart in a "courtesy meeting" and explained Beijing's position.
Beijing continues to maintain that for any meaningful dialogue Indian troops must withdraw from Doklam. Chinese diplomats have held similar meetings with Nepal officials in Kathmandu and Beijing.
Unlike China, India has so far not made it public whether or not it has briefed foreign missions about its position on the issue.
It did discuss the issue with US diplomats though a few weeks ago. While Nepal has not sought any briefing from Indian authorities yet, there's a growing concern within Nepal intelligentsia that a prolonged standoff involving India, China and Bhutan will not be in Kathmandu's interest.
Nepal, in fact, has two tri-junctions with China and India — Lipulekh in western Nepal and Jhinsang Chuli in eastern part.
Lipulekh has, in the past, been the cause of insecurity in Nepal, located in the disputed Kalapani area that is claimed by both India and Nepal.
India's decision to expand trade with China through the Lipulekh pass in 2015, during the visit by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to China, created a furore in Nepal with its parliament demanding that the two countries drop the mention of Lipulekh from the Sino-Indian joint statement as it was against all international norms.
Nepal parliament had then also sought to know if the agreement could undermine Nepal's sovereignty and its territorial integrity.
Kathmandu will also see high-level back-to-back visits from India and China this month.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...lam-issue-with-nepal/articleshow/59936124.cms[URL='https://defence.pk/pdf/posts/9742833/rate?rating=1&_xfToken=838%2C1502076476%2C2ba9b84fb46b7b6726be46a2c253651c98953a31']
[/URL]
P K Balachandran, August 7, 2017
Yi Xianliang, Chinese Ambassador in Sri Lanka
China will never use Sri Lanka’s strategic location in the Indian Ocean for its strategic and security needs, the Chinese Ambassador to Sri Lanka, Yi Xianliang, said here on Saturday.
“From over a 1000 years ago, Sri Lanka has enjoyed its strategic location because the island is in the middle of the silk route. However, the question is how do you use your potential? How do you make use of this opportunity which you have? The main answer is peace and development. So, China will take every efforts to support Sri Lanka’s economic and social development. That is the need of the people of Sri Lanka. We will never use this advantage of Sri Lanka for our strategic or security needs,” Yi said while welcoming the Chinese navy’s hospital ship, Ark Peace, at the harbor here.
“We support Sri Lanka’s development. You can check what China has done in Sri Lanka in the past. We have built infrastructure, hospitals, airport, harbour. Sri Lanka also is the first country to get the largest donation and financial assistance from China.”
“We do not have any navy soldiers or any other soldiers in Sri Lanka. We have no intelligence in Sri Lanka. We have no such people present in Sri Lanka except the Chinese diplomats present here and I am the representative of China to Sri Lanka.”
“But we have so many CEOs, Engineers, businessmen, teachers, professors in Sri Lanka. What are they doing here? They are strengthening the cooperation between China and Sri Lanka and assist Sri Lanka and develop this island country and develop the economy and social affairs. We do what we say and we have kept our promise. So trust the Chinese as we are true friends of Sri Lanka,” Yi said.
Lanka to Buy Chinese Ships
Commander Sanath Uthpala, commander of the Sri Lankan navy’s Western Command said that Sri Lanka would be interested in buying Chinese ships and that some Lankan naval personnel would be going to China in September for training.
The Commander of PLA Navy Hospital Ship Ark Peace, Rear Admiral Guan Bai Lin, said that during the ship’s three-day sojourn in Colombo, the general could visit the ship and even seek medical treatment.
PLA Navy Hospital Ship Ark Peace has 381 officers on board and since it was commissioned in 2008, it has visited 29 countries, sailed 170,000 nautical miles and medically treated 12,000 people in various countries.
The ship, praised as an ‘Envoy of Peace’ has 300 sick beds, eight operating theatres, a severe burns ward, an ICU, a dental section, and out-patient service and many other medical facilities. It has even been able to perform sophisticated surgeries.
http://southasianmonitor.com/2017/0...ankas-location-strategic-needs-assures-envoy/
What does the China-India standoff mean for Bangladesh?
Syed Zainul AbedinAshis Biswas Shahariar Sajib
Published at 02:47 AM August 07, 2017
Photo: PTI
The two countries have never been so close to a confrontational situation since 1962
Chinese and Indian military forces have been in a standoff in the Doklam area at the tri-junction of the India-China-Bhutan border. The latest round of dispute started on June 18, 2017 when Indian troops opposed the building of a road by Chinese forces at Doklam, which is under China’s control but is claimed by Bhutan.
The two countries have never been so close to a confrontational situation since 1962.
The crisis began when China claimed the Doklam plateau, located in the north of Bhutan, as part of its territory, to build a link road which would allow China access to the Chumbi valley from where the Siliguri Corridor, aka Chicken’s Neck Corridor of India, would be within the range of Chinese artillery.
Apart from its responsibility to maintain Bhutan’s territorial integrity as part of a long-term agreement, India would never want to lose its control over the Siliguri Corridor as it is the sole route that connects the northeast of India with the rest of the country.
The standoff between the two mighty neighbours puts Bangladesh in precarious situation, not in the least because it has extensive ties with both countries on the political, economic and military front.
Security experts in Bangladesh and India are already speculating that in the event China takes the Doklam plateau, India would want to use Bangladesh as a transit for military purposes, which would leave Bangladesh in a serious predicament.
The international border between India and China at Nathu La Pass, Sikkim Courtesy
Bangladesh is heavily dependent on India for water, trade, and even food security, not to mention the two countries share a more than 4,000km border, one of the largest borders between two countries.
On the flip side, China is en route to becoming the single largest individual investor in Bangladesh. Recently, the two countries have signed a $13.6bn worth of deals in trade and investment, and China has promised to provide Bangladesh with a loan assistance of $20bn. Ever since the fiasco surrounding the financing of the Padma Bridge project, Bangladesh has become increasingly dependent on China for its infrastructure and development projects. According to Bangladesh government statistics, a total of $61 million was channelled from China into Bangladesh as foreign direct investment in 2016.
Being a relatively weaker country in what can become a reasonably volatile region, Bangladesh cannot afford to put all the eggs in one basket. It is also not clear that how long India’s Nehruvian defence policy would last, especially amidst the ongoing rise of right wing politics in India, with BJP often playing up anti-Bangladesh sentiments in the east and northeastern India.
Surrounded by a highly militarised zone – northeastern India and a semi-hostile neighbour in Myanmar – Bangladesh needs some degree of military preparation in the event it finds itself in any worst-case scenario. In that case, ironically, Bangladesh would have to resort to Chinese armaments for their affordability and reasonable standard. Recently, Bangladesh has procured two submarines from China for $203 million. On the flipside, Bangladesh signed a comprehensive defence agreement with India during the Prime Minister’s latest tour to India. Although details of the agreement are yet to be made public, media reports suggest the India’s underlying motive for the agreement is to have some sort of supervision over Bangladesh’s defense cooperation with China.
Not all is however lost for Bangladesh. There are a couple of scenarios which could lead both the parties to avoid such hostility. Firstly, India is a whopping $1.2bn market for Chinese goods and products. Secondly, the growing Indian economy will go through massive infrastructural development for which it would have to resort to Chinese products and technology. Thirdly, both of the countries might stay away from engaging in a conflict fearing prolonged regional instability and involvement of other foreign nations.
According to security expert Maj Gen (retd) Abdur Rashid, the area of contention is very remote and almost impassable as it remains under snow for eight months in a year. As a result, the cost for operating a war in that region would be huge for both the countries.
“But if the countries do engage in war, it may cause regional polarisation throughout Asia. Japan and the ASEAN states might take the side of India owing to the aggressive advancement of China towards the South China Sea.”
“In that case, it would be difficult for China to carry out the One Belt, One Road initiative,” the security expert added.
The risk of a confrontation cannot be completely ruled out as it involves the image of China at the global level.
M Shahiduzzaman, a professor of International Relations at Dhaka University told the Dhaka Tribune: “If China compromises on the issue of Doklam, it has to compromise on its territorial claims forever, including Arunachal.”
He also opined that India’s economy would collapse within a week if it goes to a war with China.
According to former ambassador Humayun Kabir, both the conflicting parties should consider the interest of Bhutan as it would suffer the most should any confrontation take place.
“India is pressing the Bhutanese government to get back to the Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal motor vehicles agreement (BBIN MVA) on one hand, while China is looking forward to building a link road in its territory, on the other. But no one is considering the threat to Bhutan’s integrity because of these projects,” the former diplomat added.
Government officials of Bangladesh however said the BBIN agreement may end up being a connecting route between Bangladesh and India, as Bhutan and Nepal has already expressed reluctance to be a part of this endeavour.
http://www.dhakatribune.com/banglad...7/08/07/china-india-standoff-mean-bangladesh/
China takes up Doklam issue with Nepal
HIGHLIGHTS
Chinese deputy chief of mission discussed the Doklam issue with his Nepal counterpart
India has so far not made it public whether or not it has briefed foreign missions
Sushma Swaraj will visit Nepal next week for the BIMSTEC meeting
NEW DELHI: China's diplomatic blitz to counter India's position on Doklam standoff high up in the Himalayas continues, with its mission here briefing Nepal authorities about the dispute.
China's decision to discuss the issue with Nepal is significant because, first, India shares a tri-junction with Nepal and China in a disputed area and, second, Nepal is one country in the neighbourhood India is struggling to maintain its sphere of influence.
Diplomatic sources told TOI that the Chinese deputy chief of mission discussed the Doklam issue with his newly-appointed Nepal counterpart in a "courtesy meeting" and explained Beijing's position.
Beijing continues to maintain that for any meaningful dialogue Indian troops must withdraw from Doklam. Chinese diplomats have held similar meetings with Nepal officials in Kathmandu and Beijing.
Unlike China, India has so far not made it public whether or not it has briefed foreign missions about its position on the issue.
It did discuss the issue with US diplomats though a few weeks ago. While Nepal has not sought any briefing from Indian authorities yet, there's a growing concern within Nepal intelligentsia that a prolonged standoff involving India, China and Bhutan will not be in Kathmandu's interest.
Nepal, in fact, has two tri-junctions with China and India — Lipulekh in western Nepal and Jhinsang Chuli in eastern part.
Lipulekh has, in the past, been the cause of insecurity in Nepal, located in the disputed Kalapani area that is claimed by both India and Nepal.
India's decision to expand trade with China through the Lipulekh pass in 2015, during the visit by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to China, created a furore in Nepal with its parliament demanding that the two countries drop the mention of Lipulekh from the Sino-Indian joint statement as it was against all international norms.
Nepal parliament had then also sought to know if the agreement could undermine Nepal's sovereignty and its territorial integrity.
Kathmandu will also see high-level back-to-back visits from India and China this month.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...lam-issue-with-nepal/articleshow/59936124.cms[URL='https://defence.pk/pdf/posts/9742833/rate?rating=1&_xfToken=838%2C1502076476%2C2ba9b84fb46b7b6726be46a2c253651c98953a31']
[/URL]Similar threads
