Military Objective Achieved: China India agree to disengage

[aliyah]

can say well played but sucked in end......could had been better with joint press conference or joint press release. what would had come automatically now we have to prove that we won.....crap

 

[TheSeeker]

Nothing to prove. India has achieved its objective without shouting or bullet. They cannot build road there. Objective achieved

can say well played but sucked in end......could had been better with joint press conference or joint press release. what would had come automatically now we have to prove that we won.....crap

 

[ezsasa]

Here's a version of events leading upto stalemate being broken....
Probably this proves Military strategy and Diplomacy should always go hand in hand to achieve better results...

=======
Hamburg to Xiamen: The Doklam breakthrough was achieved Bric by Bric

ThePrint reveals how a breakthrough in talks between India and China were achieved after 10 weeks of negotiations.

Pranab Dhal Samanta

Ten weeks of intense negotiations on three independent bilateral tracks, building on a thin line of convergence, is how the Doklam stand-off was ended.

For the record, Indian troops moved out first, but only after it became clear that China was not going back to road building either. ThePrint has learnt that three simultaneous conversations were on at all times: between India and China, India and Bhutan and between China and Bhutan.

A matrix for negotiations was drawn up, where it was decided that all points of contention will be discussed one-by-one.

But how did matters reach the negotiating table in the first place?

It all started in Hamburg where Prime Minister Narendra Modi met Chinese President Xi Jinping at the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) informal meet on the margins of the G-20 Summit. And believe it or not, even this India story has a Pakistani coincidence to it.

Modi was the last to shake hands with the Chinese President at the informal Hamburg meet in the first week of July. That was because the rest of the leaders at the meet were presidents. Being the only prime minister, by protocol, Modi would have to be the last.

Modi and Xi meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit. Source: PIB
This delay was important because India had consciously decided to take a last-minute call on whether or not to raise the Doklam issue with Xi at Hamburg. The decision was to be made on the basis of a careful reading of the political build-up until that precise moment.

India had tried this open-ended approach for the first time just a month with Pakistan at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation meet at Asthana.

The decision to have a short exchange with Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif was taken at the last minute, based precisely on how the build-up happened. The Indian side came out feeling that this was a good way to deal with politically sensitive issues.

Dealing with Xi in Hamburg on Doklam fit this definition. So, when the PM shook Xi’s hand, insiders told ThePrint, he raised the issue almost soon after they were done with pleasantries. Modi told Xi that a solution ought to be found soon, reminding him of their conversation at the SCO, where both leaders had agreed to not let differences turn into disputes.

Those familiar with the details of the exchange said that the Chinese President was at first quiet, and then said that officials on both sides should talk.

And so, the talks started. All the talks took place through established diplomatic channels, which a source said, never went cold despite all the rhetoric from the Chinese side.

The negotiations, however, were tough and were on three broad lines:

• China questioned India’s sovereignty and brought up the first point of contest by way of its claim through the 1890 agreement on Sikkim. India put its understanding of history on table. There was a disagreement to the point and ended in deadlock.
• India then brought up the 2012 understanding between the Special Representatives that the trijunction would be resolved through an agreement between all three stakeholders – India, China and Bhutan. Beijing contested New Delhi’s interpretation. There was another deadlock.
• The third issue on the table was the disengagement and troop withdrawal from Doklam. Here there was some convergence, except that India wanted to be assured that no road building would take place. China wanted India to withdraw first without any pre-condition

Bhutan, on the other hand, had made it clear to China that it saw the road building activity as a transgression on Bhutanese sovereignty. Sources told ThePrint that the Bhutanese side at all times let its Chinese interlocutors know that such activity was not acceptable, especially in territory which was disputed.

To India, the message from Bhutan was equally clear: resolve this peacefully without much public outrage.

Members of a Chinese military honor guard. Source: Wikimedia Commons
In this backdrop, sources said, India and China agreed to sidestep the first two points of contention and decided to focus on the disengagement at Doklam.

With Bhutan making its position on road building clear to China and the Chinese bulldozers having been moved out, India reached an assessment that no road building was going to take place for now.

China’s bigger objective to make the BRICS Summit in Xiamen in the first week of September a grand success provided to be the best diplomatic window to seal an understanding.

Beijing wanted a willing New Delhi at the table at Xiamen. India, on its part, was now willing to withdraw first from Doklam, confident that no road building was possible.

So, through a mutually agreed plan, India took the first step and withdrew its troops on Monday, thus bringing to end a 70-day stalemate.

http://theprint.in/2017/08/28/hamburg-xiamen-doklam-breakthrough-achieved-bric-bric/

 

[ashdoc]

Times of India says that India has won---

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...to-military-conflict/articleshow/60263109.cms

 

[cyclops]

Even though we disallowed the chinese from building roads.
I seriously didn't understand the purpose of the phrase "expeditious disengagement".

Chinese told their people that Indian troops retreated, we should have said the Chinese troops retreated.

 

[nimo_cn]

which part of the two statement said the road construction is gonna stop? indian MEA used the word disengagment, which is pretty vague. withdrawal by one side is just enough to constitute a disengagment. if both side retreated, then there is no point in employing ambiguity.

 

[Krusty]

if both side retreated, then there is no point in employing ambiguity.

Not for CCP. .

 

[Project Dharma]

which part of the two statement said the road construction is gonna stop? indian MEA used the word disengagment, which is pretty vague. withdrawal by one side is just enough to constitute a disengagment. if both side retreated, then there is no point in employing ambiguity.

The Chinese side is the one being pretty vague probably to play to the domestic audience, it can't really say that they won't build a road anymore, it will amount to being bullied by India. Here is what is being reported in Indian media (emphasis mine):

When asked if there had been a "mutual disengagement" of troops that India claimed, a Chinese government spokesperson said patrols will continue in Doklam, but that "in accordance with the changes of the situation on the ground, China will make necessary adjustments and deployment in accordance with those changes." No details were offered.

 

[Project Dharma]

China Statement Cedes What India Claimed: Both Sides Give On Standoff

NEW DELHI:
HIGHLIGHTS

1. India, China end confrontation on Doklam Plateau near Sikkim border
2. China says given India's pullback of soldiers, it will make 'adjustments
3. China to maintain patrols on plateau which Bhutan claims as its own

China and India have agreed to end a lengthy stand-off at the Sikkim border that began in June, both countries said today. A statement from India suggested that both countries are withdrawing their troops from the remote Doklam Plateau, a region that both China and Bhutan claim as its own.

The tension began in June when Indian troops entered the plateau to stop China from building a new road which Delhi viewed as a serious security concern because of the access it provides to Beijing.


China, in a statement by its Foreign Ministry, did not comment on whether it will renew efforts to construct the road; Indian sources said China is withdrawing its bulldozers from the hotspot and has stopped construction.

When asked if there had been a "mutual disengagement" of troops that India claimed, a Chinese government spokesperson said patrols will continue in Doklam, but that "in accordance with the changes of the situation on the ground, China will make necessary adjustments and deployment in accordance with those changes." No details were offered.

 

[square]

which part of the two statement said the road construction is gonna stop? indian MEA used the word disengagment, which is pretty vague. withdrawal by one side is just enough to constitute a disengagment. if both side retreated, then there is no point in employing ambiguity.

ya , no one saying it has stoped....


now go on and build your road there......

 

[Srinivas_K]

Common sense prevailed on both sides and it is a win win sitution for both India and China!

 

[aditya10r]

@Project Dharma Stop educating the ugly han race,they have sold their brain and logical thinking to chairman MEOW.

 

[Willy2]

..................................................................

I think it's racially targeted to our NE brothers-sisters ....some ppl will never learn

 

[here2where]

Instead of splitting hairs, lets see it for what it is - china wanted to check india's resolve post-gandhi era. they found what they came looking for. when time came to shut down the test, both sides agreed on a face-saving formula - required for domestic consumption in both countries.
Not for a minute do i believe china wanted a war. they are not idiots.

 

[hit&run]

China Miscalculated How To Handle India, Allowed Face-Saving Exit

To the considerable relief of all parties involved, India and China agreed yesterday to end a 74-day stand-off by their security forces near the trijunction with Bhutan. India initiated the announcement with a short statement that simply said that an "expeditious disengagement of border personnel...has been agreed to and is ongoing." China confirmed that India had withdrawn border personnel. Its spokesperson added that Beijing would "continue to exercise its sovereignty and uphold its territorial integrity" and reportedly that its forces "will continue to patrol in Doklam region." Beijing acknowledged that "adjustments" would be made on the ground.

A lot was left unsaid, and deliberately so. China did not say that its own troops had fallen back or that it was calling off the road building activities in the disputed territory that had provoked the stand-off. Equally - and more importantly - Chinese officials did not confirm that road building would continue or deny a disengagement of forces. Affairs had been choreographed so that both sides could claim victory. China was satisfied with Indian forces withdrawing to their prior positions to the west. But India accomplished its objective of ensuring that China would cease road building to its south.

The Doklam situation has provoked a host of commentary, much of it ill-informed, in part due to uncertainty and initially vague reports about its exact location, the competing legal claims made by China, Bhutan, and India, and the extraordinarily harsh rhetoric by China's officials and state media leading to concerns about escalation. But three questions remain. Why did the situation come about? Why did it end? And what might be the long-term consequences?

The exact reasons and timing for China's actions which precipitated the impasse on June 16 may never be known. Construction activities meant to strengthen China's position in disputed territory have become a common practice, including in the South China Sea. It is also now clear that China's leaders miscalculated, and did not anticipate an Indian intervention as their forces pushed forward in territory disputed with Bhutan. Speculative theories that China intended to teach a lesson to India - including possibly for its boycott of the Belt and Road Initiative - do not withstand scrutiny, given that events unfolded at a site where India had natural advantages.

The reasons for the stand-off's conclusion are easier to fathom. China had attempted to threaten and cajole India through public messages, mocking videos, and travel advisories intended to limit Chinese tourists from traveling to India. None of that worked. Indian forces were also better positioned on the ground, with more robust supply lines than their Chinese counterparts. The forthcoming BRICS Summit in the south-eastern Chinese city of Xiamen risked being overshadowed. It would have been awkward and embarrassing for China to welcome an Indian prime minister as a guest even as Indian forces were present in (what Beijing believes to be) Chinese territory. Finally, the 19th Congress of the Chinese Communist Party was looming, and an unresolved stand-off with India risked having domestic political ramifications. For these reasons, it was in Beijing's interest to ensure an early resolution to the stand-off, assuming a face-saving formula could be found.


What are the consequences? In the near future, it heralds a return to some possible normalcy in India-China relations. The two sides demonstrated that, despite the rhetoric, a peaceful and diplomatic solution could be found. But the long-term implications will be more uncertain. India has shown considerable resolve, not just in an effort to protect its own security interests but those of its neighbours. China, meanwhile, has done considerable damage to its reputation in India, less by precipitating the problem, and more by its poor handling of the situation. Whether on the border or beyond - in other domains, including regional security, multilateral affairs, or economic and trade relations - it would not be surprising if New Delhi was to approach its relations with Beijing with greater wariness. Particularly following its behaviour on the South China Sea, it would be natural for India not to trust Chinese promises on the disputed frontier, but to continue to remain vigilant.

If the Chinese state has hurt its reputation, so has the press, which did not acquit itself very well over the course of the past two months. The Chinese media resorted to ugly taunts and uglier threats. The Indian media, while more tepid, was often speculative and sometimes wildly misleading. Both the Indian and the international media were particularly insensitive in their portrayal of Bhutan, whose government proved admirably level-headed in what was an extraordinarily delicate and occasionally tense situation. But even the resolution of the impasse produced confident interpretations by journalists who lacked both immediate information and broader context.

Doklam shows that a military confrontation between two nuclear-armed powers can be resolved diplomatically, and without escalation. But for China's leadership there is perhaps a need for introspection about why it let relations with India deteriorate so sharply for no material gain.

(Dhruva Jaishankar is Fellow, Foreign Policy with Brookings India in New Delhi.)

 

[Willy2]

I am worried , considering ignorance ingenerel Indian have towards residence of our 7 sisters , mongoloid looking ppl might face more trouble , 70 years of ignorence can't be removed in one generation forget about few years ....once should look at that point too , too much jigno dose to ignorant person is dangerous

 

[hit&run]

Even though we disallowed the chinese from building roads.
I seriously didn't understand the purpose of the phrase "expeditious disengagement".

Chinese told their people that Indian troops retreated, we should have said the Chinese troops retreated.

Can you please quote the whole statement.

 

[Project Dharma]

Can you please quote the whole statement.

It is in the MEA statement paaji.

 

[hit&run]

It is in the MEA statement paaji.

Thanks,

If my English proficiency is good in reading diplomatic communiqués then it makes perfect sense to me that both are doing expeditious disengagement.

I do not know how @cyclops is reading it.

May be MEA should make it clear for those who are not competent enough.

 

[mahesh]

no one can shake the pla :biggrin2::biggrin2::biggrin2::biggrin2:

Its true that india could'nt shake PLA , coz PLA never came near to Indian army and Ran away without a fight