Military Objective Achieved: China India agree to disengage

[nimo_cn]

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.

that is all speculation based on ambiguity of statements from both sides.

If we interpret the statements from both sides literally, only one thing is clear, indians retreated to the indian side of the boundary, what Chinese did or will do is not clear.

 

[Dovah]

that is all speculation based on ambiguity of statements from both sides.

If we interpret the statements from both sides literally, only one thing is clear, indians retreated to the indian side of the boundary, what Chinese did or will do is not clear.

If we take everything coming out of China literally then the world belongs to China, China is the Middle Kingdom and the Chinese governments has the monopoly in regulating reincarnation. Unlike the people of China we have the liberty to not take the statements coming out of the Chinese ministry literally and to filter facts from propaganda.

 

[nimo_cn]

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.

which part of the statement implied BOTH are doing disengagment?

if I understand it correctly, disengagment doesn't necessarily involves retreats from both sides, one-side retreat could make the two disengage each other.

 

[square]

which part of the statement implied BOTH are doing disengagment?

if I understand it correctly, disengagment doesn't necessarily involves retreats from both sides, one-side retreat could make the two disengage each other.

you retreats.............................

 

[ashdoc]

What China's small neighbours should learn from India's firmness in the doklam standoff

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/dok...her-small-neighbours/articleshow/60267739.cms

 

[Project Dharma]

which part of the statement implied BOTH are doing disengagment?

if I understand it correctly, disengagment doesn't necessarily involves retreats from both sides, one-side retreat could make the two disengage each other.

You used the word "implied". An implication by definition is something which is not explicitly stated. The "mutual disengagement" term used by the ministry falls within this definition.

Semantics aside, the statement has been subsequently clarified by both Indian and Chinese side although in typical diplomatic verbiage, it leaves room for interpretation.

Here is the Indian side as reported by media:

"Asked if the Chinese statement meant China had not made any concessions, officials in New Delhi said expeditious disengagement implied a withdrawal of both parties because a unilateral withdrawal by India would not have required an agreement with China. "

Here is the Chinese side:

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."

How is it speculation if the sources are Indian and Chinese officials? That is as official as it gets.

 

[ashdoc]

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/ind...road-at-doklam-again/articleshow/60264898.cms

India can swiftly intervene if China tries to build the road again. Indian troops positioned at vantage point .

 

[Nicky G]

The closest Chinis will ever come to accepting they have stopped road construction.


If they were continuing with the road, there would be no need for obfuscation; rather, they'd be bombastically rubbing it in.

 

[Krusty]

The closest Chinis will ever come to accepting they have stopped road construction.


If they were continuing with the road, there would be no need for obfuscation; rather, they'd be bombastically rubbing it in.

This is Donald trump level of mincing words

CCP > Trump

 

[IndianHawk]

if I understand it correctly, disengagment doesn't necessarily involves retreats from both sides, one-side retreat could make the two disengage each other.

The problem was not the military , it was the damn road. Why are chinese not openly saying that they will complete the road?
What are they afraid of ??

If Indian disengaged unilaterally why has the work on road which was stopped has not started again?? Lack of cement ??

Unless china openly declares to complete the same road and start construction work again china lost.

If china does either of that then Bhutan lost.

Remember India was challenging China in another country's frontier:biggrin2::biggrin2::biggrin2::biggrin2:

Also where is the punishment by might Hans , India did violated chinese sovereignty. Chinese said so themselves.
How come India walks without any repercussions. ???? PLA couldn't find courage ??

 

[Mikesingh]

If we interpret the statements from both sides literally, only one thing is clear, indians retreated to the indian side of the boundary, what Chinese did or will do is not clear.

You must be a spokesman of Global Times as you refuse to see the facts and keep spinning yarns and clutching at straws to avoid embarrassment.

The basic issue in this stand-off was PLA's illegal construction of a road in DISPUTED TERRITORY BETWEEN BHUTAN AND CHINA which Bhutan objected to and asked for India's help.

The road construction has stopped and thus both armies have now disengaged and withdrawn to status quo ante. If this road construction was not stopped, then there was absolutely NO question of the Indian Army unilaterally withdrawing.

Now do you get it or are you so brainwashed by your propaganda machine that you refuse to acknowledge the facts?

 

[hit&run]

which part of the statement implied BOTH are doing disengagment?

if I understand it correctly, disengagment doesn't necessarily involves retreats from both sides, one-side retreat could make the two disengage each other.

The confusions is on your part. It is Chinese government who is not telling you about their stand on building the road. Shoot them an e-mail and ask not us.

Open a thread on Chinese forum and ask this question, "Why Chinese Government is not telling about their plan of constructing Road."

 

[S.Balaji]

Doklam standoff resolution: India's greatest diplomatic victory in decades

The Ministry of External Affairs on Monday announced that following a diplomatic breakthroughIndian troops had begun disengaging at the Doklam border site. Later in the day, reports clarified that the disengagement exercise had been completed, after a nearly two-and-a-half-month standoff, and the Chinese side had decided to withdraw road-construction equipment from the disputed site.
The end of the Doklam standoff heralds quite possibly one of India’s most spectacular diplomatic victories in decades, and like any real victory it does not need shouting from rooftops. From beginning to end, the execution of India’s strategy here has been flawless and has achieved what India always wanted – Status Quo Ante -- and a much-needed counter to China’s salami tactics. The magnitude of the victory is only understood when we realise how crushing a personal defeat for Xi Jinping this actually is.
Xi, clearly identified as the mastermind of this Bhutan gambit, had made a number of assumptions, all of which turned out to be erroneous. The first was the belief that India could be punished for its OBOR Lèse-majesté by weaning Bhutan away from India. The logic was, if Bhutan were sufficiently pressured, it would have to open direct talks with China through embassy, and thereby open itself up to OBOR. The opinion in Beijing seems uniform as to the genesis of this particular showdown – it was in fact Xi putting personal pique over national interest. The net result of him personalising policy has been one of the biggest setbacks that China has faced in recent memory.

Unwittingly, Chinese actions have simply added to India’s stature as a mature and responsible status quo power. What had been clear from day one was that China’s options were limited. On the one hand, if China used force it would set a precedent that other countries could also respond in force to China’s land grabs, not to mention destroy several fundamentals of nuclear deterrence. On the other hand, if China did not use force it would be seen as weak – encouraging other neighbours to counter-land/sea grabs. In effect, unwittingly, China landed itself in a 'do-and-be-damned, don’t-do-and-be-damned' quandary. Knowing this full well, India chose to give China a face-saving exit, though it could have just squatted on the disputed land in perpetuity – much like China did. This is not a sign of weakness, this is a sign of confidence.

What exactly has happened here is that India has not only found the best way to deal with China, but also created a template for other countries to follow. China, while grabbing land, expects other countries to sit by passively and not shoot. What India’s actions have proved is that China too has very few options, if other countries choose to squat on Chinese (or disputed) land. This now lies at the core of Xi Jinping’s problems in Beijing. As his purge of opponents intensifies, to compensate for his visible mismanagement of the economy, the opposition to him within the party is also intensifying. Beijing was full of rumours of the severe criticism he was facing from within the party as a result. Besides, Global Times, with its strident rhetoric, instead of serving as force multiplier, was actually making his situation within the politburo worse by preventing him from covering up his faux pas. Normally, all Xi Jinping would have to do would be to tell GT to tone it down. In this situation, he could not, as any such directive would be picked on by his opponents as a sign of weakness.

Sadly for Xi, even the stars conspired against him. It would have been particularly gut-wrenching for him to host Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the BRICS summit on Sunday, with Indian troops squatting on allegedly Chinese soil – an ironic replay of when his troops were squatting on our soil while Xi was being feted in Ahmadabad. There was also no way to reschedule the 19th party congress of the Chinese communist party, where he is anyway expected to be criticised harshly, albeit in private. This will not just be about Doklam, where his personal pique has led to China’s decades-old bluff on land squatting being called out, but also of what is seen as his personal mismanagement of the Korean nuclear and missile issue and the deployment of an avoidable missile shield that directly endangers Chinese security. At some point, Xi Jinping just decided to cut his losses and prevent this from spiralling into a bigger fiasco. It is to India’s credit that it avoided triumphalism and limited his public loss of face.

While it is very hard to tell, sources within the party in Beijing seem to think that the 19th party congress will see a very real leadership challenge. While this will not be and outright coup, it will certainly lead to some much-needed checks and balances on Xi Jinping’s power -- if not to curb him personally, to curb his personalisation of policy and self-destructive tendencies. Make no mistake about it – while our commentariat may say this is a “small victory” or a “draw” that it merely prevented a few kilometres of road being built – the fact is these few kilometres of road have damaged Xi Jinping’s standing within the CCP in a way nothing has in the past. However, to sound a note of caution, we must be clear that in all likelihood Xi will survive this, even if he gets much weakened and much embittered and there is no substitute for vigilance and no time to wallow in our victory.

However, it would be unfair to give overall the credit to the mere clumsiness and incompetence of Xi Jinping. What we must recognise here is that his plan would have worked just fine, were it not for the new chutzpah and professionalism across the board in New Delhi – PMO, Military, MEA. Rapidity of response, restraint in words, no hyperbole, no threats, no signs of backing down, conciliation or cowardice, no working at cross purposes – is this the same New Delhi we so love to hate? In the space of a few months, they have successfully stared down a superpower, defended an ally, prevented the entry of Bhutan into the Chinese orbit, discredited the Chinese press with its own people, created a rift between the Chinese press and its leadership, destroyed 30 years of Chinese bluff and countered a tactic people thought could not be countered, gravely weakened China’s paramount leader, and exposed China as a petulant child, while simultaneously reinforcing India’s image as a reliable and sober status quo power.

So, if you think preventing a few kilometres of road being built, and allowing continued Chinese patrols counts as a draw, think again, because this is the clearest case of game, set and match India in modern history – with lots of aces thrown in for good effect.

 

[here2where]

.. India chose to give China a face-saving exit..

What are we getting in exchange for giving them a 'face-saving exit'?
NSG entry? Masood Azhar?

 

[airtel]

Dokalam: Chinese troops have left with bulldozers: Official

Press Trust of India | New Delhi Aug 28, 2017 10:57 PM IST

As part of the disengagement, the Chinese troops have left the dispute area of Dokalam along with bulldozers and removed the tents which they had pitched, according to a top Indian government official.

The official, on the condition of anonymity, said there were about 1700-1800 Chinese troops in the area where they proposed to build a road and all of them have left.

The Indian troops, whose number was in a "few hundreds", have also moved out of the stand-off area, the official told PTI tonight, adding it is a "demilitarised" area now.

The stand-off had begun in June when the Indian troops objected to the Chinese building the road there.

"The bulldozers have been taken away, tents have been removed and even a flag which they (Chinese) had hoisted there has been removed," the official said.

Earlier, in the morning, the External Affairs Ministry said "expeditious disengagement of border personnel at the face-off site in Dokalam has been agreed to and is on-going."

Later, in the evening, External Affairs Ministry spokesman Raveesh Kumar said the process of disengagement had almost been completed under verification, reflecting an end to the nearly two-and-half-month long standoff.

"This process has since been almost completed under verification," Kumar said, referring to the disengagement.

An official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the process of resolving the matter started after a brief interaction between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Hamburg in July.

Subsequently, the Special Representatives of the two countries -- National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and China's State Councillor Yang Jiechi -- were in touch, the official said.
The breakthrough came just days ahead of the BRICS Summit to be held in Chinese city of Xiamen from September 3-5, which Modi is expected to attend.


http://wap.business-standard.com/ar...-with-bulldozers-official-117082801393_1.html

 

[airtel]

that is all speculation based on ambiguity of statements from both sides.

If we interpret the statements from both sides literally, only one thing is clear, indians retreated to the indian side of the boundary, what Chinese did or will do is not clear.

To India’s troop pullback, China likely to suspend road construction, former Chinese diplomat
Posted, 2017-08-29
The Hindu


In a deal that is likely to be delicately balanced, China may suspend the construction of the road, while India is likely to initiate the pullback of troops, to end the three-month old standoff in the Doklam plateau, says a former Chinese diplomat .


https://article.wn.com/view/2017/08/29/To_India_s_troop_pullback_China_likely_to_suspend_road_const/

 

[hit&run]

What are we getting in exchange for giving them a 'face-saving exit'?
NSG entry? Masood Azhar?

Diddly Squat.

India shouldn't have abandoned the post. Though we have now achieved our military goal of maintaining Status Quo but giving Chinese a face saver shows that we are still diplomatically recessive.

I must also bring it to the notice of readers that when there was debate in Parliament, scoundrels like SP's Naresh Agarwal and others were talking like if India has committed some crime and it is India's responsibility to be nice and tranquil with the neighbours. What Rahul Gandu did by meeting Chinese ambassador we all know.

Sushma Swaraj played it to the gallery and did all kind of Meow Meow and Bling Bling on being nice, trade, control of tongue and what not.

Reading tweets of Presstitutes and leaders like Omar Abdullah one thing was pretty clear that they paddling Chinese narrative and at the same time putting pressure on GOI to behave like Congress-I "Being Sensitive to Chinese Sensitivities".

Modi was more than ready to tow their line of thinking. May be he hoped they will credit him for that as well.

But when disengagement happened they kicked him in his gut and started paddling same twisted doubts on his diplomatic success.

Modi's inferirity complex is getting bigger and bigger day by day.

 

[Indian Sniper.001]

Modi's inferirity complex is getting bigger and bigger day by day.

Don't agree with this. Do you really think he plays for others to credit him? He's gonna pour water on Abdullah's and others dreams.

 

[indus]

Diddly Squat.

India shouldn't have abandoned the post. Though we have now achieved our military goal of maintaining Status Quo but giving Chinese a face saver shows that we are still diplomatically recessive.

I must also bring it to the notice of readers that when there was debate in Parliament, scoundrels like SP's Naresh Agarwal and others were talking like if India has committed some crime and it is India's responsibility to be nice and tranquil with the neighbours. What Rahul Gandu did by meeting Chinese ambassador we all know.

Sushma Swaraj played it to the gallery and did all kind of Meow Meow and Bling Bling on being nice, trade, control of tongue and what not.

Reading tweets of Presstitutes and leaders like Omar Abdullah one thing was pretty clear that they paddling Chinese narrative and at the same time putting pressure on GOI to behave like Congress-I "Being Sensitive to Chinese Sensitivities".

Modi was more than ready to tow their line of thinking. May be he hoped they will credit him for that as well.

But when disengagement happened they kicked him in his gut and started paddling same twisted doubts on his diplomatic success.

Modi's inferirity complex is getting bigger and bigger day by day.

Hahaha. Thats a laughable analysis.
1. There is no point in holding a location when we already man the overlooking ridges. Indian Army has receded giving the control back to Bhutanese guards. If China attempts to jump again our army can repeat the same action that we did just now. By holding bhutan territory permanently we will be percieved as another bully just like china.

2. What barking opposition and pappu did was expected. Infact that s all they can do right now. What Sushma Swaraj said differentiates us from chinese. We are not a war mongering or bully nation. We dont honk like a madman. When army has alrdy secured the area and held ground what more S.Swaraj or Govt spokespersons should say. All the good talk of trade bla bla is to act responsibly while holding a big stick in hand.

3. Abdullahs, rahulg etc are barking dogs. Modi doesnt need their approval or credit. Country has given him the mandate to do the right thing. And he was doing that way only. PM doesnt work for getting credit from media or opposition leaders. He works for the country. I think that is how democracy works.
If anybody has inf complex it is soniya and rahul. How can a chaiwala become PM.

 

[Kchontha]

What are we getting in exchange for giving them a 'face-saving exit'?
NSG entry? Masood Azhar?

You have avoided a possible militery conflict between two nuclear power neighbour. If war broke out nobody wins. A face saving exit for the Chinese because they first started the intrusion in order to occupy a disputed area but they have to withdraw later i.e. failure and a loss for them. On the other a victory for India because India thwarted the Chinese attempt by making them retreat. India will deal with the chinese regarding Masood Azhar and NSG later when the issue come up. Don't worry about that.