SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The US and North Korea are not the only ones ratcheting up tensions in the Orient. From Japan-Forward[1]:
The armies of India and China are locked in a standoff over the strategic Doklam plateau, an area inside the sovereign territory of Bhutan. Under the purview of the Indian-Bhutan Friendship Treaty, signed in New Delhi in February 2007, the tiny kingdom called in for Indian help after the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) moved in under orders from Beijing.
Asserting dubious claims and then engaging in bullying and revisionism to get its way—this is now becoming an oft-repeated Chinese pattern we have all seen before. Indeed, in the offensive launched in June 2017 in the Doklam plateau—which China now claims is a “traditional pasture for Tibetans” (ignoring completely the fact that China predicates the claim in Doklam upon its equally untenable claim over Tibet)—China attempted to build a road near the critical tri-junction border area among China, India, and Bhutan. This area is vital to India’s security.
In the specific case of Doklam, there is a fascinating twist to the tale. China did not foresee India’s tenacious military resistance and political fortitude in response to the PLA’s Doklam encroachment. Unlike the Scarborough Shoal, where Filipino forces quit without a fight, India appears very unlikely to withdraw its troops unilaterally from the Doklam border area, and is standing up to China.
China and India are the first and second largest world militaries, perhaps it would be wise to heed the sage advice.
[1]:Japan-Forward is the English-language publication of the Sankei Shimbun, a large Japanese newspaper with an open Nationalist slant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @03:31PM (1 child)
Okay then you have missed The Economist [economist.com] which reads like Chinese propaganda. Reminds me of why I unsubscribed it in the first place - their Asian coverage is so abysmally bad. Also, India hasn't actually said anything, and Indian public doesn't care if India bows down to China.
Bhutan asked India to take care of it's border security when China annexed Tibet. Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim did the same thing, but because they weren't critical for Eastern India, Indian government was in better bargaining position. Secondly, China is violating a treaty [qz.com] that was specifically made to address issues like Doklam:
(Notice how The Economist doesn't say anything about the treaty or what Bhutan is saying.) China's position is that since it is Chinese territory, it is not part of the tri-juncture boundary. India has so far is simply not in position to back down as it will be akin to giving up all of the Eastern India without a war and with added loss of spoiling its foreign policy for rest of the history.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 26 2017, @08:04PM
Not true. It's important to India strategically because it is an advantageous piece of territory for a Chinese attack on India at this area of weakness, but it is not akin to giving up Eastern India which can still be supplied via Bangladesh and the Indian sea. In the advent of an actual Chinese attack, I consider it unlikely that India would be able to hold the Siliguri Corridor no matter the state of Doklam. Indian or Bhutan control of the Doklam area would be rather to slow down/complicate a Chinese advance than to prevent it (and it probably wouldn't be reliable at that either against a prepared, technologically advanced foe).