Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

BREAKING: India withdraws from Doklam/Donglang

The summer-long standoff ended just as a BRICS summit begins in China.

Published

on

6,189 Views

The Chinese Foreign Ministry and Indian Ministry of External Affairs have both confirmed that Indian troops have been withdrawn from Doklam/Donglang, an area which China claims as its sovereign territory while India maintains it is part of its effective protectorate of Bhutan.

The tense border standoff began in June of 2017 when Indian troops crossed through Bhutan and into Chinese sovereign territory. India claimed that China’s building of a road in the religion threatened Indian security, as the road is located near to India’s Siliguri Corridor, also known as the Chicken’s Neck, a narrow strip of land which connects India’s north-eastern provinces with the rest of the country.

China in response stated that one can build whatever one likes on one’s sovereign territory and that if Indian troops did not withdraw from Chinese land, military action against India could result from New Delhi’s violation of Chinese territorial integrity. Throughout the conflict  China consistently stated that war was a last resort which China sought to avoid. This helps explain nearly three months of Chinese patience and restraint over the very delicate issue.

The standoff now appears to be over as Indian withdrawal, a crucial precondition for dialogue, has now occurred.

According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry,

“Chinese personnel on the ground have confirmed that Indian personnel and equipment that had crossed the border have been withdrawn to the Indian side.

China will continue to exercise its sovereign rights according to historical border accords”.

Meanwhile, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs has stated,

In recent weeks, India and China maintained diplomatic communication in respect of incident at Doklam. We were able to express our views and convey our concerns and interests.

“On this basis, expeditious disengagement of border personnel at the face-off site at Doklam has been agreed to and is on-going”.

In reality, China has been fully vindicated. Indian withdrawal is in many respects an implied acknowledgement of Chinese sovereignty while India’s new found willingness to engage in dialogue with Beijing over the issue is a fulfilment of China’s only request, combined with the demand to withdraw troop. Both of these conditions have now been fulfilled by India, but only after an embarrassing summer-long stand-off that has gained India nothing but three months worth of renewed distrust from the Chinese side.

While in a material sense, this is very much a Chinese victory, in a diplomatic sense, it may also be a victory for the BRICS economic partnership.

The announcement of Indian withdrawal from Doklam/Donglang was made shortly before a BRICS summit is to begin in China. This looks to be the first time high-level Indian leaders will meet with those of China since the beginning of the standoff. Many continue to speculate that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will skip the meeting out of embarrassment over the situation.

The fact remains however that India felt that it would have been awkward at the least and counter-productive at the most to go into a multi-lateral summit whose wealthiest members is China, as the only country with any major dispute with Asia’s leading power.

India’s move to enter Doklam/Donglang was always brazen in this context as India, along with Pakistan entered the Shanghai Cooperation Organisations (SCO) shortly before India entered Chinese territory. In this sense, India was almost mocking the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation by refusing to utilise the SCO as a proper forum in which to settle such disputes diplomatically.

Now though, just prior to the start of a summit of another major group where India, China and indeed Russia are also members, India has climbed down from a position of provocation and is seemingly returning to one of partial cooperation.

Apart from the obvious climb-down in face of what would have been a very embarrassing BRICS summit, there are two other possibilities which may be behind India’s decision.

First of all, it is possible that prior to the BRICS summit, Russia, a traditional Indian ally and today, China’s most important global partner, told the Indian leadership that the stand-off ought to end and that it ought to end before the BRICS summit begins, for the sake of unity and cohesion within the group.

Secondly, as India’s withdrawal comes shortly after Donald Trump’s request for Indian involvement in Afghanistan, a move highly unpopular with both Pakistan and China, there remains a possibility that in withdrawing from Doklam/Donglang, India is attempting to assert its independence from the western geo-political bloc just as sure as in going against China, New Delhi was attempting to stand against the undisputed leader of Asian geo-politics.

In any case, the Indian withdrawal has now reduced the possibility of war in the region, a development which is ultimately positive for all sides and also the wider world.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Voltaire
Guest
Voltaire

This is excellent news…

China and India must give an example to ther world of sorting out their border disputes peacefully…

And BRICS, the SCO and the New Silk Road are far too important for the future of the world than a few square miles of barren mountainside…

Let us hope now that the upcoming BRICS meeting in China will produce more positive results….

From which the whole of Eurasia will benefit…

VeeNarian (Yerevan)
Guest
VeeNarian (Yerevan)

“Indian withdrawal has now reduced the possibility of war in the region, a development which is ultimately positive for all sides and also the wider world.” It is good for 2.6 billion Chinese and Indians that this deescalation of these petty disputes has happened. Now both countries need to work urgently, through the SCO, BRICS and Russia to resolve the border as soon as possible, or the same situation could flare-up under manipulation from the US/EU/NATO cabal. The resolution must be on the basis of mutual regard for security and respect, or these two giants and world leaders could end… Read more »

DarkEyes
Guest
DarkEyes

Your philosophy about “The Republic of China” seated in Taiwan is, excuse me the expression, BS.

Changkai-Thing was a vassal of the British Empire and the United States Inc. and tried to steal China for these corrupt western powers at that time, like the game by the Oligarchs in Russia. Thanks heaven for the Chinese people, he had to flee to an island called Taiwan.

VeeNarian (Yerevan)
Guest
VeeNarian (Yerevan)

Changkai was all of those things you have mentioned, no doubt. But he was the corrupt head of all China, in corrupt command of a China stretching back unbroken to the origins of civilization itself. The people of China were fully justified in their revolution, which has produced the modern nation that we have today, with Beijing as the capital of a superpower. I celebrate this massive human achievement. But this still means that the People’s Republic of China started in 1949, two years AFTER 1947 when slave India was freed. So, enough of the the treaty of this, that… Read more »

DarkEyes
Guest
DarkEyes

You are right. I was wrong.
He was the corrupt head of all China.
Thanks.

S.M. De Kuyper
Guest
S.M. De Kuyper

India’s drawdown is lovely! Wise.

Tapaskr Kalingi
Guest
Tapaskr Kalingi

Mature decisions. Both the nations have withdrawn their troops.

FiendlyNeighbourhoodTerrorist
Guest

There was never the slightest possibility of war over this. India went in thinking it would get American back up, didn’t, and ended up looking for a face saving solution. It has finally decided to cut its losses while claiming vindication on the grounds that the Chinese road building activity has “ceased”. When China resumes building the road, as it very shortly will, India will stay totally silent on the topic and deny any media claims that this road is being built. Bhutan is not an Indian protectorate. It does not even have any kind of military alliance with India.… Read more »

ignasi
Guest
ignasi

A loud applause to diplomacy

Latest

US media suffers panic attack after Mueller fails to deliver on much-anticipated Trump indictment

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom said it all: “Mueller – The name that ended all mainstream media credibility.”

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT


Important pundits and news networks have served up an impressive display of denials, evasions and on-air strokes after learning that Robert Mueller has ended his probe without issuing a single collusion-related indictment.

The Special Counsel delivered his final report to Attorney General William Barr for review on Friday, with the Justice Department confirming that there will be no further indictments related to the probe. The news dealt a devastating blow to the sensational prophesies of journalists, analysts and entire news networks, who for nearly two years reported ad nauseam that President Donald Trump and his inner circle were just days away from being carted off to prison for conspiring with the Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

Showing true integrity, journalists and television anchors took to Twitter and the airwaves on Friday night to acknowledge that the media severely misreported Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, as well as what Mueller’s probe was likely to find. They are, after all, true professionals.

“How could they let Trump off the hook?” an inconsolable Chris Matthews asked NBC reporter Ken Dilanian during a segment on CNN’s ‘Hardball’.

Dilanian tried to comfort the CNN host with some of his signature NBC punditry.

“My only conclusion is that the president transmitted to Mueller that he would take the Fifth. He would never talk to him and therefore, Mueller decided it wasn’t worth the subpoena fight,” he expertly mused.

Actually, there were several Serious Journalists who used their unsurpassed analytical abilities to conjure up a reason why Mueller didn’t throw the book at Trump, even though the president is clearly a Putin puppet.

“It’s certainly possible that Trump may emerge from this better than many anticipated. However! Consensus has been that Mueller would follow DOJ rules and not indict a sitting president. I.e. it’s also possible his report could be very bad for Trump, despite ‘no more indictments,'” concluded Mark Follman, national affairs editor at Mother Jones, who presumably, and very sadly, was not being facetious.

Revered news organs were quick to artfully modify their expectations regarding Mueller’s findings.

“What is collusion and why is Robert Mueller unlikely to mention it in his report on Trump and Russia?” a Newsweek headline asked following Friday’s tragic announcement.

Three months earlier, Newsweek had meticulously documented all the terrible “collusion” committed by Donald Trump and his inner circle.

But perhaps the most sobering reactions to the no-indictment news came from those who seemed completely unfazed by the fact that Mueller’s investigation, aimed at uncovering a criminal conspiracy between Trump and the Kremlin, ended without digging up a single case of “collusion.”

The denials, evasions and bizarre hot takes are made even more poignant by the fact that just days ago, there was still serious talk about Trump’s entire family being hauled off to prison.

“You can’t blame MSNBC viewers for being confused. They largely kept dissenters from their Trump/Russia spy tale off the air for 2 years. As recently as 2 weeks ago, they had @JohnBrennan strongly suggesting Mueller would indict Trump family members on collusion as his last act,” journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted.

While the Mueller report has yet to be released to the public, the lack of indictments makes it clear that whatever was found, nothing came close to the vast criminal conspiracy alleged by virtually the entire American media establishment.

“You have been lied to for 2 years by the MSM. No Russian collusion by Trump or anyone else. Who lied? Head of the CIA, NSA,FBI,DOJ, every pundit every anchor. All lies,” wrote conservative activist Chuck Woolery.

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom was more blunt, but said it all: “Mueller – The name that ended all mainstream media credibility.”

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

Latest

Canadian Lawmaker Accuses Trudeau Of Being A “Fake Feminist” (Video)

Rempel segued to Trudeau’s push to quash an investigation into allegations that he once groped a young journalist early in his political career

Published

on

Via Zerohedge

Canada’s feminist-in-chief Justin Trudeau wants to support and empower women…but his support stops at the point where said women start creating problems for his political agenda.

That was the criticism levied against the prime minister on Friday by a conservative lawmaker, who took the PM to task for “muzzling strong, principled women” during a debate in the House of Commons.

“He asked for strong women, and this is what they look like!” said conservative MP Michelle Rempel, referring to the former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould, who has accused Trudeau and his cronies of pushing her out of the cabinet after she refused to grant a deferred prosecution agreement to a Quebec-based engineering firm.

She then accused Trudeau of being a “fake feminist”.

“That’s not what a feminist looks like…Every day that he refuses to allow the attorney general to testify and tell her story is another day he’s a fake feminist!”

Trudeau was so taken aback by Rempel’s tirade, that he apparently forgot which language he should respond in.

But Rempel wasn’t finished. She then segued to Trudeau’s push to quash an investigation into allegations that he once groped a young journalist early in his political career. This from a man who once objected to the continued use of the word “mankind” (suggesting we use “peoplekind” instead).

The conservative opposition then tried to summon Wilson-Raybould to appear before the Commons for another hearing (during her last appearance, she shared her account of how the PM and employees in the PM’s office and privy council barraged her with demands that she quash the government’s pursuit of SNC-Lavalin over charges that the firm bribed Libyan government officials). Wilson-Raybould left the Trudeau cabinet after she was abruptly moved to a different ministerial post – a move that was widely seen as a demotion.

Trudeau has acknowledged that he put in a good word on the firm’s behalf with Wilson-Raybould, but insists that he always maintained the final decision on the case was hers and hers alone.

Fortunately for Canadians who agree with Rempel, it’s very possible that Trudeau – who has so far resisted calls to resign – won’t be in power much longer, as the scandal has cost Trudeau’s liberals the lead in the polls for the October election.

 

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

Latest

Why Joe May be Courting Stacey

Joe Biden has a history on compulsory integration dating back to the 1970s that Sen. Jesse Helms called “enlightened.”

Patrick J. Buchanan

Published

on

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via The Unz Review:


Of 895 slots in the freshman class of Stuyvesant High in New York City, seven were offered this year to black students, down from 10 last year and 13 the year before.

In the freshman class of 803 at The Bronx High School of Science, 12 students are black, down from last year’s 25.

Of 303 students admitted to Staten Island Technical High School, one is African-American.

According to The New York Times, similar patterns of admission apply at the other five most elite high schools in the city.

Whites and Asians are 30 percent of middle school students, but 83 percent of the freshman at Bronx High School of Science, 88 percent at Staten Island Technical and 90 percent at Stuyvesant.

What do these numbers tell us?

They reveal the racial composition of the cohort of scientists and technicians who will lead America in the 21st century. And they tell us which races will not be well represented in that vanguard.

They identify a fault line that runs through the Democratic Party, separating leftists who believe in equality of results for all races and ethnic groups, and those who believe in a meritocracy.

Mayor Bill de Blasio has expressed anger and frustration at the under-representation of blacks and Hispanics in the elite schools. But Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the state legislature have ignored his pleas to change the way students are admitted.

Currently, the same test, of English and math, is given to middle school applicants. And admission to the elite eight is offered to those who get the highest scores.

Moreover, Asians, not whites, are predominant.

Though 15 percent of all middle school students, Asians make up two-thirds of the student body at Stuyvesant, with 80 times as many slots as their African-American classmates.

The egalitarian wing of the Democratic Party sees this as inherently unjust. And what gives this issue national import are these factors:

First, the recent scandal where rich parents paid huge bribes to criminal consultants to get their kids into elite colleges, by falsifying records of athletic achievement and cheating on Scholastic Aptitude Tests, has caused a wave of populist resentment.

Second, Harvard is being sued for systemic reverse racism, as black and Hispanic students are admitted with test scores hundreds of points below those that would disqualify Asians and whites.

Third, Joe Biden has a history on compulsory integration dating back to the 1970s that Sen. Jesse Helms called “enlightened.”

Here are Biden’s quotes, unearthed by The Washington Post, that reflect his beliefs about forced busing for racial balance in public schools:

“The new integration plans being offered are really just quota systems to assure a certain number of blacks, Chicanos, or whatever in each school. That, to me, is the most racist concept you can come up with.

“What it says is, ‘In order for your child with curly black hair, brown eyes, and dark skin to be able to learn anything, he needs to sit next to my blond-haired, blue-eyed son.’ That’s racist!

“Who the hell do we think we are, that the only way a black man or woman can learn is if they rub shoulders with my white child?

“I am philosophically opposed to quota systems. They insure mediocrity.”

That was 44 years ago. While those views were the thinking of many Democrats, and perhaps of most Americans, in the mid-’70s, they will be problematic in the 2020 primaries, where African-Americans could be decisive in the contests that follow Iowa and New Hampshire.

Biden knows that just as Bernie Sanders, another white male, fell short in crucial South Carolina because of a lack of support among black voters, he, too, has a problem with that most loyal element in the Democratic coalition.

In 1991, Biden failed to rise to the defense of Anita Hill when she charged future Justice Clarence Thomas with sexual harassment. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was a law-and-order champion responsible for tough anti-crime legislation that is now regarded as discriminatory.

And he has a record on busing for racial balance that made him a de facto ally of Louise Day Hicks of the Boston busing case fame.

How, with a record like this, does Biden inoculate himself against attacks by rival candidates, especially candidates of color, in his run for the nomination?

One way would be to signal to his party that he has grown, he has changed, and his 2020 running mate will be a person of color. Perhaps he’ll run with a woman of color such as Stacey Abrams, who narrowly lost the 2018 governor’s race in Georgia.

An ancillary benefit would be that Abrams on the ticket would help him carry Georgia, a state Donald Trump probably cannot lose and win re-election.

Wrote Axios this morning:

“Close advisers to former Vice President Joe Biden are debating the idea of packaging his presidential campaign announcement with a pledge to choose Stacey Abrams as his vice president.”


Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

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

Trending