Connect with us
//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Latest

5 possible outcomes of the China-India border dispute

India withdrawing troops and coming back to the peace table, ideally at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, remains the best option for all parties. The US getting involved is an even more dangerous possibility than a short Sino-Indian war.

Avatar

Published

on

The current border dispute between China and India centred around the tri-junction of the borders of India, Bhutan and China in an area India calls Doklam and China calls Donglang, is showing no signs of being resolved.

China has once again blasted India for literally refusing to budge on the issue.

Geng Shuang, a spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry has most recently stated,

“Over one month has passed since the outbreak of the incident. The Indian border troops still illegally stay in the Chinese territory. Moreover, the Indian side is building roads, hoarding supplies and deploying a large number of armed forces on the Indian side of the boundary”.

China continues to accuse India of provocative measures that work against the interests of peace. China furthermore accuses India of using the excuse of supposedly aiding the small state of Bhutan when in reality, India simply seeks to encroach on what Beijing views as sovereign Chinese land. While in the 1950s, India and China settled disputes over the poorly written 1890 border agreement between China and British colonial India, Bhutan was not a party to the treaty and therefore the so-called ‘Bhutan excuse’ has become India’s justification for encroaching on what China claims as its territory, territory India prefers to consider part of the pro-India Bhutanese state.

India has thus far refused to engage in dialogue nor has India agreed to a withdrawal of troops from the disputed region, which is China’s major prerequisite for peace talks.

Due to the intransigence of the situation. Here are possible outcomes to consider.

1. India eventually withdraws and returns to dialogue

This is by far the best possible scenario for all sides involved and it is luckily a realistic one. India and China have mechanisms in place to settle such disputes without resorting to a standoff. As mutual members of both the BRICS economic cooperation union as well as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), India and China could both rely on these bodies to provide a peaceful solution to the current tensions. In particular, the SCO is in many ways tailor made as the best possible organisation through which to resolve the crisis.

Such organisations did not exist during China and India’s short border war in 1962. Furthermore, in 1962, China and the Soviet Union were rivals where today Russia is an ally to both China and India. As a fellow member of both the BRICS and SCO, Russia could act as a third party mediator in the conflict as Moscow is respected by both sides and has in Syria, proved successful negotiation skills between generally adverse parties. Russia brought Turkey and Iran to the same peace table in Astana and also reached a situation where representatives of the secular Syrian government sat across the room from jihadist terrorists that the west calls ‘moderate’.

There is some hope that perhaps China and India could even solve the dispute bilaterally. In 2014, shortly after the current Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi took office and shortly before a scheduled meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, the two countries engaged in a protracted stand-off in the Ladakh region. India eventually stepped down while Modi claimed a kind of moral victory before his Hindutva base for “standing up” to China.

The current dispute could end in this way with India backing off of the dispute while Modi and his followers simultaneously play the role of victim and hero, an odd combination that is increasingly the narrative in Modi’s India. The only analogous political narrative in the world is the Israeli propaganda known in Tel Aviv as Hasbara.

In spite of such a politically awkward narrative, if this brings peace, it is still the best possible outcome.

2. War 

In 1962, China and India fought a short but fully fledged border war in which China won a resounding victory. In 1987, both countries engaged in what is generally called a ‘skirmish’ in which both sides claimed a kind of victory.

If the tensions do not die down quickly, there is a chance for war. Many Chinese commentators have soberly and regretfully remarked that such a thing is possible even though China has made it clear that it is not an option that China considers to be a pleasant one.

The following video from China, made for an international, but particularly an Indian audience, makes it clear that China sees the conflict as one where Indian chauvinism is something of a post-colonial holdover whereby Indian ultra-nationalists have adopted much of the language and legal positions of their former European colonial masters.

China seeks Asian unity and continues to seek India’s participation in the One Belt–One Road initiative that could not only turn China and India’s relationship into one based on mutual prosperity but could also help to ease long-term tensions between Pakistan and India as Islamabad is an eager participant in One Belt–One Road.

War remains on the Chinese table but only as a regrettable last resort.

3. Trade war 

India has already made it clear that they see their so-called North-South trade corridor as an alternative to One Belt–One Road where in reality it would function best as an integral tributary of the Chinese belt and road.

As I wrote only yesterday in The Duran, in respect of India’s attempt to build a rival to One Belt–One road,

“As with many of the self-styled ‘big ideas’ coming out of  Modi’s India, the problem is not so much that the ideas are bad but rather that the ‘big ideas’ are rather quite limited and limiting. While China’s One Belt–One Road is literally a global land and sea super-highway, India’s North-South corridor is by comparison a small, however important roundabout.

This is proof positive that India would only benefit by linking its own ambitious infrastructure and trade projects with the larger one being built by China and her partners. In a competition between a set of important regions and the wider world, the latter will always be more vital and more attractive to potential partners.

This is why if India cooperated with Russia, India could make the most of its own ambitions while reaping the benefits afforded to all nations, but particularly to large nations which are part of One Belt–One Road.

If India insists on sitting out of One Belt–One Road, the road will simply circumvent India via the China Pakistan Economic Corridor, thus affording increased benefits to India’s regional rival that could otherwise be distributed across South Asia.

India is only selling itself short by trying to sell the world an alternative to One Belt–One Road. In this sense, One Belt–One Road can function without India, but India cannot function at its optimum potential outside of One Belt–One Road”.

India, fearing she could lose another war to China might prefer to wage a kind of trade war which doubles as a cold war. While this might sound ridiculous as both states have mutual allies, mutual interests and are both members of the BRICS and SCO, if India continues its stance as a kind of unwilling outlier to One Belt–One Road, the reality is that the short term embarrassment of losing a hot war to China would merely be replaced by the more long term embarrassment of losing out in participating in the most ambitious Asia-centric trading initiative of the modern age.

The only silver lining to such a scenario is that so long as no blood is shed, there is at least some possibility for a future generation of Indian leaders to correct the short sighted attitude of the Modi government.

4. US proxy war leading to WWIII

Luckily, this is among the least likely scenario, but due to America’s erratic behaviour in areas close to China, including the South China Sea, Yellow Sea and Korean peninsula, it is not a scenario that can be entirely ruled out.

Under Modi, India has begun buying overpriced weapons from the United States. The US under Donald Trump is enjoying counting the money (he more or less said so at a press conference with Modi) while India has convinced itself that the US is now a fully fledged military ally, as though forgetting that throughout the Cold War, the opposite was the case in many respects and that the current US policy on South Asia remains confused as Washington has not fully adjusted to the post-Cold War realities of the region.

However, now that the US has shown its cards in respect of using the Korean crisis in order to distract China from One Belt-One Road and to provoke China on the Chinese doorstep to which the US has the greatest access due to its relationship with Seoul, the US could potentially make a decision laden with both hubris and foolishness and seek to send so-called ‘peace keeping troops’ to the foreboding Himalayas.

READ MORE: America uses North Korea as a transparent excuse for meddling in South Korea and provoking China

If America did this, it would be seen as the most provocative measure against China since the hot phase of the Korean War. If the hypothetical US troops strayed into Chinese territory, it could lead to a war between super-powers with the added element of India being a nuclear armed state.

This scenario would not only be dangerous but it is one that without resorting to the deployment of nuclear weapons, the US could not win. The US has little experience in fighting mountainous conflicts and judging by the difficulties the US had in securing the Tora Bora in Afghanistan, it would be very ugly indeed.

One ought to hope that the US is not as stupid as it looks, in this respect.

5. The United Nations Security Council 

In an ideal world, there would be no better place to peacefully thrash out a resolution to the conflict than the United Nations Security Council. However, given the UNSC’s composition, such an attempt would only unnecessarily magnify the current geo-political alignments which have contributed to the crisis in the first place.

As China is a permanent member of the UNSC, China would obviously vote in favour of the well known Chinese position. Russia would of course try to do from the UN what it would otherwise most likely do if invited as a third party mediator in a bilateral discussion between Beijing and New Delhi. However, forcing Russia to abstain on a vote in a dispute between two Russian allies is an awkward situation that Russia doesn’t need. In this sense Russia would prefer to act as a friend of both India and China in a situation where Russia wouldn’t be forced to publicly vote for one side versus the other.

The US and its UNSC allies Britain and France would almost certainly make matters worse due to a combination of former colonial arrogance and America’s capacity to work against China at any given opportunity.

In this sense, while the UN might seem like an ideal place to settle the dispute, in reality, it would only magnify tensions.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement //pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Germany Wants Nuclear Bombers

Germany does not manufacture atomic weapons but has come to consider itself as a nuclear power because it has vectors to use them.

The Duran

Published

on

Via VoltaireNet.org:


Germany’s armed forces are currently studying the possibility of acquiring nuclear bombers capable of using the new American B61-12 atomic bombs.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon itself plans to deploy these new atomic bombs in the German region of Eifel, in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The German air force already has multi-tasking Tornado warplanes, which are already capable of deploying American atomic bombs. But those aircraft are going to be replaced, possibly, by European-developed Eurofighters, or by United States manufactured F/A-18 Super Hornets.

Either way, the warplane that Germany selects will have to be equipped with the AMAC (Aircraft Monitoring and Control) system, which allows the use of the new American atomic bombs and enables the regulation of the power of the explosion as well as at what height the bombs explode after they are launched.

Germany does not manufacture atomic weapons but has come to consider itself as a nuclear power because it has vectors to use them, and believes that this gives it the right to sit on the UN Security Council sharing the permanent member position occupied by France.

Both countries would thus represent the European Union, under the auspices of NATO.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

1st since Notre Dame: Yellow Vests back despite ‘unifying’ disaster & they are angry

‘Yellow Vests’ march in Paris for 23rd straight week.

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT…


Yellow Vests protests brought clashes and tear gas back to the streets of Paris, despite politicians’ calls for “unity” in the wake of the Notre Dame fire. For protesters, the response to the fire only showed more inequality.

Saturday’s protests mark the 23rd straight weekend of anti-government demonstrations, but the first since Notre Dame de Paris went up in flames on Monday. Officials were quick to criticize the protesters for returning to the streets so soon after the disaster.

“The rioters will be back tomorrow,” Interior Minister Christophe Castaner told reporters on Friday. “The rioters have visibly not been moved by what happened at Notre-Dame.”

For many of the protesters, grief over the destruction of the 800-year-old landmark has made way for anger. With smoke still rising from Notre Dame, a group of French tycoons and businessmen pledged €1 billion to the cathedral’s reconstruction, money that the Yellow Vests say could be better spent elsewhere.

“If they can give dozens of millions to rebuild Notre Dame, they should stop telling us there is no money to respond to the social emergency,” trade union leader Philippe Martinez told France 24.

Saturday’s protests saw a return to scenes familiar since the Yellow Vests first mobilized in November to protest a fuel tax hike. Demonstrators in Paris’ Bastille district set barricades on fire and smashed vehicles, and police deployed tear gas to keep the crowds at bay.

Sporadic incidents of vandalism and looting were reported across the city, and some journalists even reported rioters throwing feces at police.

60,000 police officers were deployed across the country, and in Paris, a security perimeter was set up around Notre Dame. A planned march that would have passed the site was banned by police, and elsewhere, 137 protesters had been arrested by mid afternoon, police sources told Euronews.

Beginning as a show of anger against rising fuel costs in November, the Yellow Vests movement quickly evolved into a national demonstration of rage against falling living standards, income inequality, and the perceived elitism and pro-corporation policies of President Emmanuel Macron. Over 23 weeks of unrest, Macron has made several concessions to the protesters’ demands, but has thus far been unable to quell the rising dissent.

After Notre Dame caught fire on Monday, the president postponed a television address to the nation, during which he was expected to unveil a package of tax cuts and other economic reforms, another measure to calm the popular anger in France.

Macron’s address will be held on Thursday.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

O Canada! The True North Strong and Free – Not

Maybe it’s past time for Canadians to get serious again about their independence.

Jim Jatras

Published

on

Authored by James George Jatras via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


Canadian visitors to Washington sometimes wonder why their embassy stands at the foot of Capitol Hill.

The answer? To be close to where Canada’s laws are made.

A main showcase of Ottawa’s craven servility to Washington is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s complicity in the US-led regime change operation being conducted against Venezuela. Not content with ruining his own country with multiculturalism, polysexualism, and the like, Li’l Justin has acted in lockstep with Big Brother to the south inslapping sanctions on Venezuelan officials and serving as a US agent of influence, especially with other countries in the western hemisphere:

‘A Canadian Press report published at the end of January revealed that Canadian diplomats worked systematically over several months with their Latin American counterparts in Caracas to prepare the current regime-change operation, pressing [Venezuelan President Nicolás] Maduro’s right-wing opponents to set aside their differences and mount a joint challenge to the government. “The turning point,” said the Canadian Press [Global News], “came Jan. 4, when the Lima Group … rejected the legitimacy of Maduro’s May 2018 election victory and his looming January 10 inauguration, while recognizing the ‘legitimately elected’ National Assembly.” The report cited an unnamed Canadian official as saying the opposition “were really looking for international support of some kind, to be able to hold onto a reason as to why they should unite, and push somebody like Juan Guaidó.”

‘One day prior to Maduro’s inauguration, [Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia] Freeland spoke to Guaidó, the newly-elected National Assembly speaker, by telephone to urge him to challenge the elected Venezuelan president.’

But that’s not all. Canada is out front and center in the “Five Eyes” intelligence agencies’ war on China’s Huawei – with direct prompting from US legislators and intelligence.  As explained by Col. Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Gen. Colin Powell, it’s not that Huawei violated any law when circumventing US sanctions but it is the US that is acting illegally by unilaterally imposing sanctions that were never agreed to internationally. But that’s OK – when it comes to Washington’s claims of jurisdiction over every human being on the planet, Justin and Chrystia are happy to oblige!

Also, let’s not forget Chrystia’s role in keeping the pot boiling in Ukraine. It would of course be cynical (and probably racist) to attribute anything relating to Ukraine to her own interesting family background …

To be fair, the lickspittle attitude of Canadian officials towards their masters south of the 49th parallel is hardly unique in the world. Also to be fair, it’s natural and would be generally beneficial for Canada to have a positive relationship with a powerful, kindred neighbor rather than a negative one. Think of Austria’s ties to Germany, or the Trans-Tasman relationship of Australia and New Zealand, or the links that still exist between Russia and Ukraine despite efforts by the west to set them against each other (as, for example, Spain and Portugal were at loggerheads for several centuries, when the latter was a loyal ally of Spain’s foe, Great Britain, to such an extent that Portugal was sometimes shown on maps and globes in the same pink as British possessions; a similar situation existed between Argentina and British ally Chile).

A close and mutually advantageous relationship is one thing, but Canada’s de facto loss of independence is another. Not only does the US control Canada’s diplomacy, military, and intelligence but also her financial system (with, among other levers, the notorious FATCA law, which places Canadian institutions under the supervision of the IRS, with Canada’s revenue service acting, care of the Canadian taxpayer, as a cat’s paw for not only the IRS but the NSA and other snooping agencies). As explained by one Canadian nationalist (yes, they do exist!), the redoubtable David Orchard, trade is also a critical issue:

‘Canada …, after almost three decades of “free trade” with the U.S., has more than $1.2 trillion in federal and provincial debt, large deficits at every level, no national child or dental care, high university tuition, miserly old age pensions, years of massive budget cuts, and giveaway prices for its exports of oil, gas, timber and minerals.

‘For 150 years, great Canadian leaders have warned that without an economic border with the United States, we would soon no longer have a political border.

‘We once owned the world’s largest farm machinery maker, Massey Harris, headquartered in Toronto; built the world’s largest and most respected marketer of wheat and barley, the Canadian Wheat Board, based in Winnipeg; created a great transcontinental railway system, beginning in Montreal, which tied our country together; and saw Vancouver’s shipyards produce the beautiful Fast Cat ferry.

‘Instead of spending hundreds of billions on foreign-made machinery, electronics, automobiles, ships, fighter jets and passenger aircraft (even payroll systems for federal employees!), we can build our own, both for the domestic and export market.

‘We once designed and built the world’s most advanced jet interceptor, the Avro Arrow, so we know it can be done. [Emphasis added] With Canada’s resources and ingenuity, it could create a prosperous, domestically controlled economy that would give Canadians multiple benefits, security and pride of ownership. All that is required is some of the will that drove our ancestors to create an alternate power in North America. As George-Étienne Cartier, the great Québécois Father of Confederation, put it, “Now everything depends on our patriotism.”’ [Note: Orchard is the author of the must-read book The Fight for Canada: Four Centuries of Resistance to American Expansionism. To begin at the beginning, in the late 1680s, as part of English-French rivalry in North America, Massachusetts Puritans sought to root out the nest of popish deviltry known as Quebec. Following their disastrous 1690 defeat, they decided to fight Satan closer to home by hanging witches. The rest, as they say, is history…]

Scratch a Canadian patriot and you’ll hear about the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow. As a watershed moment in Canada’s downward slide into subservience, the cancellation of what by all accounts was a magnificent aircraft – and a snapshot of what Canada’s international competitiveness (including in advanced aerospace) could have looked like had it been able to develop independently – might have been the point of being sucked into the American vortex. As noted by one response to my suggestion that Ottawa’s stance on Venezuela amounted to Canada’s annexation by the US: “Canadian here…unfortunately, the above is true (not literally of course, but in practice). It goes back even before the time of Diefenbaker, who canceled our Avro Arrow program on demand from the US – thus destroying our aerospace industry and causing brain drain to the US/Europe.”

To this day, the decision of then-Prime Minister John Diefenbaker to kill the Arrow project (and “put 14,528 Avro employees, as well as nearly 15,000 other employees in the Avro supply chain of outside suppliers, out of work”) on what came to be known as “Black Friday,” February 20, 1959, remains controversial and shrouded in mystery. A mix of budgetary, political, technological, and personality factors has been cited, none of them conclusive. Pressure from the US side, including unwillingness of Washington to purchase a Canadian aircraft when the US could pressure them to buy American planes and missiles, no doubt played a key role: “Instead of the CF-105, the RCAF invested in a variety of Century Series fighters from the United States. These included the F-104 Starfighter (46 percent of which were lost in Canadian service), and (more controversial, given the cancellation of the Arrow) the CF-101 Voodoo. The Voodoo served as an interceptor, but at a level of performance generally below that expected of the Arrow.”

While we may never know reliably why Diefenbaker cancelled the Arrow or how Canada or Canadian industry might have followed a different path, there’s no question of the superior capabilities of the Arrow. As it happens, one of the few pilots who had a chance to test the Arrow in an impromptu friendly dogfight is now-retired USAF fighter pilot Col. George Jatras, later US Air Attaché in Moscow (also, this analyst’s father). As he related in 2017:

‘I’ve received a number of messages in the last couple days about this bird, including some that say it may be revived. I don’t know how The Arrow would compare to today’s aircraft, but I had a first-hand lesson on how it faired against the F-102.

‘In 1959, I was stationed at Suffolk County AFB on Long Island with the 2nd Fighter Interceptor Squadron. We had an informal exchange program with a Canadian fighter squadron stationed near Montreal. From time to time, two or four aircraft from one of the squadrons would fly to the other’s base on a weekend cross country.

‘On one such exchange, I was #3 in a four ship formation led by [former Tuskegee airmanErnie Craigwell (I don’t recall who the other pilots were). As we entered Canadian airspace, cruising at about 40,000 ft., we spotted a contrail well above our altitude (probably at 50,000ft.) and closing very fast.  As the other aircraft appeared to be passing by, we could clearly see the delta shaped wing and knew it was the Avro Arrow that the Canadian pilots had told us about. Then, instead of just passing by, he rolled in on us! Ernie called for a break and we split into elements. When we talked about the encounter afterwards we all agreed that our first thought was, “This guy is in for a surprise; he doesn’t know that he’s taking on the F-102.”  Well, we were the ones in for a surprise. Even with two elements covering each other, not one of us could get on his tail. His power and maneuverability were awesome.  After he had played with us for a few minutes, like a cat with four mice, he zoomed back up to about 50K and went on his way. What an aircraft! What a shame that it never went into production.’

What is perhaps most curious about the Arrow’s demise is that “everything was ordered brutally destroyed; plans, tools, parts, and the completed planes themselves were to be cut up, destroyed, scrapped and everything made to disappear.”  Why? Well, security of course! Don’t engage in conspiracy theories …

The Canadian national anthem finishes with a pledge: “O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.” It should be noted that understandably resentful Loyalists fleeing the US following the American Revolution were a major contribution to the growth of Canada’s English-speaking population. American troops – back when we were the plucky underdog fighting the mighty British Empire – invaded Canada in 1775 and during the War of 1812 but were defeated. Relations got testy during the American Civil War as well, and even afterwards the US was wary of a proposed united “Kingdom of Canada,” hence the choice of the name “Dominion” in 1967. If today’s Canadians think we-all down here don’t know whom they’ve mostly had in mind to “stand on guard” against all this time, they’d better think again.

Maybe it’s past time for Canadians to get serious again about their independence – eh?

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Videos

Trending