Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
It’s your last chance to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch in 2017. Help us gear up to fight the status-quo in 2018! Every dollar counts!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Lessons From the China-India Border Standoff

by

The face-off between China and India at the Donglang/Doklam tri-junction ended after more than two months. Both sides claimed victory.

India pointed to the double or simultaneous withdrawal (euphemistically termed “disengagement”) by both parties from the area controlled by China (also claimed by Bhutan) and intruded into by the Indian troops. As for China, it confirmed that the remaining 50 or so Indian soldiers had left the area, without uttering a word about Chinese troops having pulled back as well. What Beijing did say was that it would continue to “patrol and  garrison” the area, and  “adjust and deploy”  its forces as the situation requires.

If there’s any victory, it’s that both sides have stepped back from another border skirmish after the 1962 war. That by itself is significant and reason enough to heave a sigh of relief. The prospect of two nuclear powers, which together have over one third of the world population, fighting each other was truly scary.

It’s also a victory for the emerging multi-polarity. A clash of the two titans, both members of BRICS, could debilitate, if not kill, BRICS as we know it.

New Delhi needed an expeditious, face-saving exit as badly as Beijing.  For the Indian troops squatting in the Himalayan plateau, the imminent snowfalls and  subzero temperature would make their continuing presence there unbearable. The Chinese agreement to double withdrawal was the best Modi could get and had demanded publicly. He had probably known from the outset that the Middle Kingdom  would not abandon road-building in the area under Chinese control.

In truth, the Chinese road works provided a cover, a fig leaf, to India’s incursion into the area to which it has no claim. The Chinese ambassador in New Delhi had told India of the road building in advance. India feigned ignorance and seized on the purported change of the status quo to encroach on Chinese territory, claiming that it came to Bhutan’s defence under a treaty between them. Thimphu sources laid bare New Delhi’s lie. Bhutan didn’t request India’s help. Their friendship treaty isn’t a defence treaty, and there’s no provision for mutual defence.

It has become abundantly clear to many Bhutanese that India’s military adventurism in Donglang/Doklam sought to spite Sino-Bhutan relations to prevent the pro-Beijing party from winning the election in Bhutan next year. Just as India successfully did in the previous poll in 2013 by cutting Indian subsidies on petrol and household gas for Bhutanese.

What Beijing found especially infuriating was that the Indians crossed into the Chinese-controlled area to which New Delhi has no claim, and from the Sikkim sector where the boundary had been settled by a treaty between Qing China and British India way back in 1890.

While the inclement weather in the Himalayan plateau was of concern to the intruding Indian troops, what worried Beijing was Modi retaliating with a “no show” at the BRICS Summit to be held in Xiamen, China from 3rd to 5th September. That would be a slap on the face of the Chinese host. China sets great store by BRICS and its façade of unity. Beijing doesn’t want to be blamed for causing a fracture, much less a breakup,  of BRICS. After more than two months of verbal battle across the Himalayas, China made the 11th hour tactical concession to ensure the upcoming BRICS Summit a success.

At last, the border standoff is over, bar the nationalistic, even jingoistic, shouting of the chattering class in both countries. Are there lessons to be learnt from the rupture for China and Bhutan?

For the Bhutanese, especially the younger generation who want economic development, they need to seize the  Destiny in their own hands. That entails defying threats from New Delhi and voting for the party that can bring in aid, investment and tourist spending from China. Only they can free themselves from the shackles of being a de facto protectorate of India. And they must seize the moment, when the Belt and Road Initiative is in full swing.

For the Chinese, it must be prepared to pay a price for its principled objection to India’s inclusion in the Nuclear Suppliers Group. It must also recognise, and act accordingly, India’s opportunistic practices in foreign affairs. Like its new BFF America, India doesn’t give a hoot to bilateral treaties and international conventions.

That complicates and toughens China’s defence along the 4,000-plus km border with India. Real time satellite monitoring of Indian troops along the long border, and deployment of rapid response force to prevent intrusion have become necessary.

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
December 15, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Michael Dickinson
What About Our Debts, Pope Francis?
Phil Rockstroh
What Was Verifiably Great About America: Fragments of a Memoir Set to a Musical Soundtrack
Edward Curtin
A Man Turns
December 14, 2017
John W. Whitehead
Surveillance That Never Sleeps
Pam Martens - Russ Martens
Roy Moore’s Loss: a Victory for the Young Girls of America
Eric Toussaint
Debt is a Determining Factor in History
Liaquat Ali Khan
Appropriation of Jerusalem
Kenneth Surin
Selective Impressions of the New Zealand-Aotearoa Conjuncture
Jack Rasmus
Is the Bitcoin Bubble the New ‘Subprime Mortgage’ Bomb?
William Sanjour
How the Once Tiny Waste Management Industry Captured the EPA and Became Very BIG
Devin Currens
Hey Mainstream Environmentalists: If You’re Not Embarrassed, You’re Not Paying Attention
Courtney Myers
“Me Too” Movement Gives Twitter Fuel to Trump’s Fire
Mel Gurtov
Momentum for Talks with North Korea?
Julian Vigo
Student Loans, The Indentured Servitude of the 21st Century
John Carroll Md
Do Jimmy Kimmel and Haiti Have Anything in Common?
Brian Foley
How to Stop Trump
December 13, 2017
Gabriel Rockhill
The U.S. is Not a Democracy, It Never Was
Jim Kavanagh
Zionism in the Light of Jerusalem
John Davis
The Epic of Our Awakening
Linn Washington Jr.
The Shadow of Smuts on Trump’s Jerusalem Declaration
Timothy M. Gill
The Global Retreat From Human Rights in the Trump Administration
Robert Fisk
Trump’s Shameful Decision on Jerusalem
Lance Olsen
Natural Variability isn’t the Final Word on Climate Science
Robert Jensen
In Patriarchy, Sexual “Misconduct” Not Surprising
Mike Bader
Grizzly Bear Goal Not Yet Achieved
Steve Horn
India May Ban Petcoke, One of Dirtiest Fossil Fuels Exported by Koch Brothers
December 12, 2017
John Pilger
Why the Documentary Must Not Be Allowed to Die
David Rosen
Politics Trumps Religion: The Immorality of Republican “Christian” Morality
Ken Levy
Apparently, Child Rapists Deserve the Death Penalty, But a Child Molester Deserves a U.S. Senate Seat
John Wight
Trump’s Jerusalem Ploy
David Swanson
Sun Tzu: The Ass of War
Ramzy Baroud
The ‘Last Martyr’: Who Killed Kamal Al-Assar?
Doug Johnson
Are Polls Showing a Win for Accused Molester Roy Moore Accurate?
Andrew Bacevich
A Harvey Weinstein Moment for America’s Wars?
Robert Dodge
Saving Humanity From Itself
Binoy Kampmark
Pakistan, US Drones and Idle Threats
Tom H. Hastings
Leave it on The Table Again?
Cesar Chelala
Living in New York. Missing Home
December 11, 2017
Oscar Oliver-Didier 
The Invisibility of Poverty in Puerto Rico
Patrick Cockburn
Trump’s Jerusalem Decision Risks Uniting the Entire Arab World Against the US
Uri Avnery
From Barak to Trump
Robert Hunziker
Dying Ecosystems
Paul Tritschler
The Year Without Summer
Ramzy Baroud
What Trump Has Done: The Entire US-Middle East Political Framework Just Collapsed
Francis Thicke
What Does “Organic” Mean?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail