China’s maximalist position aimed at cramping India’s strategic space
China's attempts to lay claim over areas south of the India-China-Bhutan tri-junction+ , as made obvious through a map released by Beijing a few days ago, could worsen the ongoing stand-off in the Doklam area+ . Indian authorities see this as not just intended to take a maximalist position in the dispute, but also to obfuscate the main issue of PLA's violation of the status quo in the region.
This fits in nicely with China's almost habitual strategy to create a smokescreen of victimhood, even as it itself encroaches upon disputed territory. The stand-off in the Doklam area+ continues with Indian forces blocking the road construction by the Chinese towards where Beijing believes the tri-junction (the place where borders of the 3 countries meet meet) is located.
According to reports from Beijing, the map released by China on Friday night to highlight 'trespassing' by Indian forces shows disputed Doklam, not far from the tri-junction, as belonging to China.
According to strategic affairs expert Brahma Chellaney, China is deliberately conflating 2 separate issues - the delineation of the tri-junction points and PLA's forcible attempt to change the status quo by building a strategic highway through the Doklam plateau.
"The PLA's violation of the Doklam status quo is the central issue that has triggered the current troop standoff but Beijing is seeking to mask this by spotlighting the issue relating to the tri-junction points,'' said Chellaney.
All three countries have a different take on where exactly the tri-junction is located and the dispute awaits a negotiated settlement among the 3 parties. Beijing believes it is located 20 km south of Doka La, the place Bhutan believes to be the tri-junction.
This fits in nicely with China's almost habitual strategy to create a smokescreen of victimhood, even as it itself encroaches upon disputed territory. The stand-off in the Doklam area+ continues with Indian forces blocking the road construction by the Chinese towards where Beijing believes the tri-junction (the place where borders of the 3 countries meet meet) is located.
According to reports from Beijing, the map released by China on Friday night to highlight 'trespassing' by Indian forces shows disputed Doklam, not far from the tri-junction, as belonging to China.
According to strategic affairs expert Brahma Chellaney, China is deliberately conflating 2 separate issues - the delineation of the tri-junction points and PLA's forcible attempt to change the status quo by building a strategic highway through the Doklam plateau.
"The PLA's violation of the Doklam status quo is the central issue that has triggered the current troop standoff but Beijing is seeking to mask this by spotlighting the issue relating to the tri-junction points,'' said Chellaney.
All three countries have a different take on where exactly the tri-junction is located and the dispute awaits a negotiated settlement among the 3 parties. Beijing believes it is located 20 km south of Doka La, the place Bhutan believes to be the tri-junction.
However, to mount pressure on India and stake a maximalist position, Beijing has released, as Chellaney said, dubious maps laying claim to areas that are south of the tri-junction points as determined and perceived by India. It is through such a maximalist position that Beijing is alleging that Indian troops crossed over to the Chinese side.
There's also a third issue - that of the Sikkim-Tibet boundary - which Beijing has raised to deflect attention from its attempt to build a road through Doklam for military purposes.On the Sikkim sector, as New Delhi pointed out last week, India and China reached an understanding in 2012 to discuss and finalize that boundary's demarcation under the Special Representatives framework.
"In this context, for Beijing to cite an 1890 colonial-era agreement on Sikkim makes little sense other than to confound the real issue at stake. That colonial-era accord is of no direct relevance to China's road building through Doklam,'' said Chellaney.
The citing of the 1890 Sikkim-Tibet agreement is interesting as it coincides with the disdain expressed by Beijing for the 1984 Sino-British accord, which paved the way for Hong Kong's handover in 1997, saying that it no longer had binding power. In the case of South China Sea too, where again Beijing took a maximalist position by claiming close to 85 per cent of its waters, Beijing cited "historical rights'' for political purposes.
There's also a third issue - that of the Sikkim-Tibet boundary - which Beijing has raised to deflect attention from its attempt to build a road through Doklam for military purposes.On the Sikkim sector, as New Delhi pointed out last week, India and China reached an understanding in 2012 to discuss and finalize that boundary's demarcation under the Special Representatives framework.
"In this context, for Beijing to cite an 1890 colonial-era agreement on Sikkim makes little sense other than to confound the real issue at stake. That colonial-era accord is of no direct relevance to China's road building through Doklam,'' said Chellaney.
The citing of the 1890 Sikkim-Tibet agreement is interesting as it coincides with the disdain expressed by Beijing for the 1984 Sino-British accord, which paved the way for Hong Kong's handover in 1997, saying that it no longer had binding power. In the case of South China Sea too, where again Beijing took a maximalist position by claiming close to 85 per cent of its waters, Beijing cited "historical rights'' for political purposes.
Comments
Post a Comment