What is highly worrisome is that even the roads built by the Border Roads Organisation behind possible frontlines are too narrow and too easily interruptiblehttp://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/edit/intrude-violate-and-then-offer-to-discuss.html
Intrude, violate, and then offer to discuss
Claude Arpi
25 April 2013
[What can India do in the face of Beijing’s brazenness? One way out would be to postpone Premier Li Keqiang's visit to India. But New Delhi will probably prefer to ‘engage' China. We have been doing this for decades]
Would you call it an intrusion, incursion, transgression or violation?
It does not matter, as it is ‘perceptional’!
Let us look at the facts: For centuries, the Great Himalayas were an incident-free customary natural border between Tibet and India.
Then in 1950, the Chinese invaded the Roof of the World. Progressively, the People’s Liberation Army spread over the Tibetan plateau, building roads, airstrips and setting up garrisons.
The border became the Line of Actual Control. Now, the LAC has become ‘perceptional’. This is a convenient appellation for the Chinese as they can enter at will places they perceive as ‘theirs’, plant their tents or send their yaks to graze.
The Times of India reported that New Delhi “has recorded well over 600 ‘transgressions’ — the Government’s euphemism for cross-border intrusions — all along the unresolved 4,057 km Line of Actual Control by the People’s Liberation Army”. And this, over the last three years alone.
The latest Chinese ‘perceptional’ land- grabbing, marks a new leap forward; this time, the Chinese have come much deeper into India’s territory and in a larger number.
According to media reports, a large group of Chinese soldiers set up a camp some 10 km inside the Indian territory in the Daulat Beg Oldi sector of Ladakh on April 15. To make things worse, two helicopters apparently provided logistic support to the Chinese troops.
India asserted its own ‘perception’ two days later, sending a battalion of Ladakh Scouts to camp some 500 metres from the Chinese position.
An officer told The Times of India: “Our soldiers are conducting ‘banner drills’ (waving banners and placards at the Chinese troops to show it is Indian territory) through the day.”
Reuters quotes another official: “Ladakh in particular…is being targeted. Though Chinese troops usually go back after marking their presence, they are increasingly coming deeper and deeper into our territory with the aim to stake claim to disputed areas.”
The Indian Government says one should not worry, that many mechanisms are in place: “The two countries are in touch with each other to resolve the row.”
It is true that an Agreement on the Establishment of a Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs was signed on January 17, 2012, but it is clear that the Chinese use these mechanisms (including the 1993 and 1996 border agreements) to do what they please.
A question should be asked: Why is the LAC still not defined?
What was the point of successive National Security Advisers meeting their Chinese counterparts 15 times since 2003 if they are unable to define an ‘actual’ line?
The blame is usually put on the ‘insincerity’ of the Chinese side which is not ready for the slightest compromise, but it is also a fact that instinctively the Indian leadership prefers to hide behind a ‘mechanism’, to not ‘hurt’ our Chinese neighbours’ feelings or ‘makes things worse’, especially when the Chinese Premier is expected in New Delhi.
A telling incident is worth recalling. In September 1956, 20 Chinese crossed over the Shipki-la pass into Himachal Pradesh. A 27-member Border Security Force party met the Chinese the same day. They were told by a Chinese officer that he had been instructed to patrol right up to Hupsang Khad (four miles south of Shipki La, the acknowledged border pass).
The BSF were advised “to avoid an armed clash but not yield to the Chinese troops.”
New Delhi did not know how to react. A few days later, Prime Minister Nehru wrote to the Foreign Secretary: “I agree with [your] suggestion… it would not be desirable for this question to be raised in the Lok Sabha at the present stage.”
The Indians MPs, being unpredictable, may raise a hue and cry. So, it is better to keep it secret and eventually mention it ‘informally’ to Chinese officials, thought the Prime Minister.
Finally, the Ministry of External Affairs told Beijing:
“The Government of India are pained and surprised at this conduct of the Chinese commanding officer.”
This was 56 years ago. Is the situation different today?
Chinese incursions continued in the 1950s in Garwal (Barahoti), Himachal Pradesh (Shipkila) and then spread to Ladakh and the North-East Frontier Agency. Mao’s regime could have only been encouraged by the Government of India’s feeble complaints. Hundreds of such protests have been recorded in the 15 volumes of the White Papers published till 1965 by the Union Ministry of External Affairs. Read them and you will know that nothing is new under the Himalayan Sun.
New Delhi should have noticed earlier that Beijing did not want to settle the border. In March 1954, TN Kaul, the Joint Secretary negotiating the ‘born in sin’ Panchsheel Agreement with China, thought he was being clever to name a few border passes in the accord and that it would be enough to automatically define the frontier. He was in for a big surprise when the Chinese presented a draft that read: “The Chinese Government agrees to open the following mountain passes in the Ari [Ngari] District of the Tibet Region of China for entry by traders and pilgrims of both parties: Shipki, Mana, Niti, Kungribingri, Darma and Lipu Lekh”.
China ‘permitted’ India to cross Indian border passes. Though the Chinese later agreed to rephrase the article, Beijing never agreed that the border had thus been demarcated. Kaul had been taken for a ride.
During the Sino-Indian border talks in Beijing in 1960, the Chinese reiterated, “The negotiations and Agreement of 1954 did not involve at all the question of delimiting the boundary between the two countries.”
A few months earlier, Chinese Premier Chou Enlai stated that the two sides had been able to settle all questions “ripe for settlement”.
Then, the Five Principles were incorporated in the Preamble of the Agreement. The Report of the 1960 border talks says: “Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity assumed clear and precise knowledge of the extent of each other's territory. Two states with a common boundary could promise such respect for territorial integrity and mutual non-aggression only if they had a well-recognised boundary.”
It was not the case; it is not the case 59 years later.
What can India do?
One solution would be to postpone Premier Li Keqiang’s visit. However New Delhi will probably prefer to ‘engage’ China, in which case, one possibility would be to ‘fix’ the borders by re-opening several border passes.
The reopening of the Demchok route in Ladakh would not only ‘pin’ the border in this area, but also allow Indian pilgrims to reach the Kailash-Mansarovar area in relatively comfortable conditions.
Another border post which would make a difference, if re-opened, is the old trade route via the Karakoram pass. By building a border infrastructure, both sides would have to agree on a LAC, if not a proper border in the area; some gaps between the border posts may remain, but they could be tackled at a later stage. It’s true, though, that the ‘perceptional’ intrusions occurred mainly in the gaps. To fix a few border posts would, however, go a long way in solving the dispute.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RELATED PLEASE :
http://www.c3sindia.org/china-internal/3558
XINJIANG-TIBET: CONTINUING WEAKNESSES IN CHINA’S PERIPHERAL SECURITY
B.Raman
April 26, 2013
Ten Uighurs, three Hans and two Mongols working for the Ministry of Public Security in Xinjiang and six Uighur separatists were killed on the morning of April 23,2013, in an incident in the Selibya Township in the Bachu county, in the Kashgar area of China’s Xinjiang province. The area of the incident is near Xinjiang’s borders with Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.
2. The Information Office of the Xinjiang Government has projected the incident as a “severe, violent, terror incident” which has been brought under control. It has projected 15 of those killed as police officers and social workers helping the police in maintaining security.
3. In its announcement, the Information Office has given the following details of the incident: The incident happened after three community workers found several suspicious people and knives in a local house. They reported the details to their supervisor but were then restrained by suspected terrorists. When police and community workers arrived, they were ambushed by attackers inside and outside the house. The attackers, who had killed the three community workers who had been held captive, then set fire to the house. By the time police brought the situation under control, 15 people had been killed by the gang. Six gang members were shot dead at the scene, bringing the death toll to 21.
4. The “China Daily” has quoted Mutalif Wubuli, commissioner of Kashgar prefecture, as saying that eight suspects have been arrested. It has also quoted Qi Baowen, commander of the Xinjiang Armed Police, as saying that the consequences of the incident are relatively severe because there are many casualties.
5. Last month, courts in Kashgar had sentenced 19 people for their alleged involvement in organized terror activities and for spreading extreme religious information via the Internet and cellphones.
6. In March, the local Ministry of Public Security had started what was described as “Social management in communities” under which Uighurs were recruited as community workers to help the police in the maintenance of security. “It is the foundation of maintaining stability in the region,” Xiong Xuanguo, Secretary of the Political and Legal Affairs Commission of Xinjiang, had said in a media briefing.
7. The incident of April 23,2013, appears to have been in retaliation for the jailing of 19 Uighurs last month and to deter the local Uighurs from co-operating with the police in dealing with separatism.
8. In a commentary on the incident carried on April 25,2013, the “Global Times” of the Communist Party of China said: “The latest clashes show that Xinjiang has a long way to go in its anti-terrorism efforts. But it’s worth pointing out that this case will not pose a threat to the overall stability of Xinjiang. The public expects social harmony and prosperity…..Although Xinjiang has experienced several violent clashes in recent years, social confidence in Xinjiang and the confidence of the whole country toward the region have remained stable. The situation in Xinjiang since the July 5 riots in 2009 has improved and no violent cases have impeded that process. As the sources of violence in Xinjiang haven’t been eradicated, its occasional occurrence cannot be fully prevented. Xinjiang has learned to manage the situation despite some isolated violent cases. It has been investigating and eradicating the internal and external sources of violent terrorist attacks. We should firmly act against violent terrorists. Terrorists should not be permitted to have the misconception that they are carrying out a “holy war” or simply fighting against the regime. They must be clear that they are making enemies of all the Xinjiang people and the Chinese people.”
9. The Xinjiang authorities have not so far blamed the Pakistan-based Islamic Movement of Eastern Turkestan for the fresh violence. They are apparently worried that as the US-led Western troops thin out from Afghanistan; violence by different separatist groups could increase in Xinjiang adding to internal instability. Hence, their interest in co-operating with India in monitoring the ground situation in Afghanistan.
10. The Chinese face a two-pronged threat to their peripheral security— from the growing anger of the Tibetans in the Tibetan areas and from the Uighurs in Xinjiang. Their hopes that rapid economic development of these areas will dilute the threat have been belied so far.
11. In view of China’s insensitivity to India’s core interests and major concerns in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, it will not be in India’s interest to co-operate with China in relation to its peripheral security problems.
(The writer, Mr B .Raman, is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. Twitter @SORBONNE75)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/comments-analysis/china-to-pay-huge-price-if-it-does-not-stop-skirmishes-with-neighbours/articleshow/19733227.cms
China to pay huge price if it does not stop skirmishes with neighbours
Edward Luttwak
26 Apr, 2013
Recent incursions by the Chinese army into Indian territory in the Depsang region of Ladakh neither signify anything nor prove anything. In fact, they are all contained. But the Chinese army must stay in the game on the western front because the navy and the air force of the country get all the eastern business.
However, with such an aggressive country around as neighbour, India cannot afford to be too calm and complacent when it comes to modernising its defence forces and replacing obsolescent equipment. Of course, India had responded to China's expanding military power by continuing to strengthen its own armed forces. Though with hesitation, it had offered its training facilities for Vietnam's new submarine fleet. We all know that Beijing has abandoned its "Peaceful Rise" and is increasingly quarrelling with its neighbours on the west as well as the east.
EVEN ROADS ARE BAD
However, at this juncture, India must clearly note the glacial pace of military procurement across the globe. What is highly worrisome is that even the roads built by the Border Roads Organisation behind possible frontlines are too narrow and too easily interruptible. One must think out of the box while building new, linear roads that are able to withstand attacks from across the border.
I must say that India will do well by not following China in its act of quarrelling: unlike Beijing, New Delhi should not fight with its neighbours. China is in the process of paralysing itself by picking fights with all its neighbours (such as Vietnam, India, Japan, Taiwan and so on). This is a fatal mistake. It would have been fatal for any country, including the US, if it had attempted something similar. That is why the US never bullies Canada or Mexico. If the US had gone after Canada or Mexico (by quarrelling over land, natural resources, or for regional dominance), they would have had Soviet bases there. The US doesn't even opt for "hot pursuits" - chasing down criminals once they cross the border.
BEWARE OF JAPAN
Therefore, China will pay a price. It is going to be huge if it doesn't stop and it seems that the country is in no mood to stop. This country's undoing will be a war or even a minor skirmish with Japan over the Senkaku Islands, a group of uninhabited islands controlled by Japan in the East China Sea. China will soon, maybe in a year or two, stake a much bigger claim for these islands.
That will be the end. They can't even start a war. They will be decimated by the Japanese navy even before they start it. Any such move against Japan will be extremely disastrous for China.
I treat as a joke China's accusation that Japan and the US are being provocative by going for a joint drill. Beijing was referring to a proposed June joint drill by the US and Japan to "capture" an imaginary island. But it is the Chinese that keep sending ships, making aggressive statements, printing maps claiming 3 million square kilometres of sea. They are being provocative every day by advancing long dormant territorial and maritime claims, including most of Arunachal Pradesh.
India must resist any security relations China may try to forge with, say, a neighbour like Sri Lanka, by offering better terms, as well as it can. But first India must wake from its slumber and face reality. This is all the more important at a time when China is in the process of constantly competing with all its neighbours - its new-found aggression over land and sea in the neighbourhood is very similar to the expansionist tendencies of pre-World War II Germany.
The writer, a military strategist, is author of "The Rise of China vs the Logic of Strategy"
As told to Ullekh NP