一个印度官员眼中的中印洞朗对峙（英文）

作者：来源：Hindustan Times

Doklam defused: Why it will take a lot of effort for India, China to rebuild ties
　　In the wider Indo-Pacific region, India will be seen as the only power to have stood up to China’s aggressive policies. Recognition is Japan’s, and later US endorsement, of India’s stand
　　OPINION Updated: Aug 29, 2017 18:25 IST
　　Jayadeva Ranade
　　The announcement in Beijing and New Delhi on August 28, 2017, of a simultaneous disengagement of Indian and Chinese troops – who had faced-off on the high altitude Doklum Plateau for three months – is a welcome first step. It came after China continuously insisted for three months that the disputed 89 sq km Doklam Plateau is Chinese territory and made a variety of threats against India of the kind not seen in the past forty years. After a disingenuous initial statement implying that Indian troops alone had withdrawn, China later, in reply to a specific question, clarified that troops from both sides had pulled back. India separately announced that the bulldozers and earthmoving equipment brought by the Chinese had been removed, making it apparent that China has undertaken to cease building the road to Gyemochen through the Doklam Plateau, which was the main reason for India’s objection.
　　While China and pro-Chinese analysts will now talk of looking ahead and continuing relations as before, the fact remains that China’s unrelenting propaganda over the past three months has damaged the relationship. It has dissipated what little trust existed in the Sino-Indian relationship, rebuilding which will require a long time. More important is the need for a change in China’s attitude towards India – a point made by Prime Minister Modi in his talk at China’s prestigious Peking University during his visit to Beijing in April 2015.

　　China’s track record in abiding by agreements has, however, been dodgy. Ready recent examples are its reneging within three years in 2008 on the agreement by which it accepted Sikkim as a state of the Indian Union; backing off from the agreement on not disturbing ‘settled populations’ which pertained to Arunachal Pradesh; and, most recently, violating the 2012 agreement not to alter the status quo and cease building the road through the Doklam Plateau. China has not hesitated to go back on agreements with other countries either.

　　The Doklam stand-off has far reaching implications. It differed markedly from previous stand-offs including others that actually lasted considerably longer. During the Doklam stand-off, China’s state-owned propaganda apparatus mounted an unprecedented offensive not seen in over forty years and which revealed that the Chinese Communist leadership cared little about improving Sino-Indian ties and had scant regard for Indian sensitivities. Memories of the threats are unlikely to recede for a very long while. It ensured world attention on the stand-off at Doklam. The stand-off also triggered adverse reaction in India which, already upset at the US$ 52 billion trade deficit, has begun scrutinising Chinese commercial activity in India.
　　Countries in India’s immediate neighbourhood, like Pakistan and Nepal, have closely monitored developments surrounding Doklam with both, pointedly, staying silent. Both can be expected to reassess their policies towards India, while Pakistan will additionally re-evaluate China’s reliability. Islamabad will have noted China’s assessment that US President Trump’s recent announcement on Afghanistan and terrorism increases pressure on Pakistan and heralds a realignment in geopolitics of the region.
　　In the wider Indo-Pacific region too India will be seen as the only power to have stood up to China’s aggressive policies. Recognition is Japan’s, and later US endorsement, of India’s stand. In effect, India challenged China at Doklam and paused the seeming momentum Beijing had created to aggressively expand strategic space and territory, thereby denting Beijing’s image.
　　Military and political considerations have been important. China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) was in an untenable position at Doklam. India’s swift and robust response was unexpected and caught the Chinese unprepared. In the ten days prior to Beijing going public with news of the stand-off, there were undoubtedly deliberations in the PLA and Chinese Communist Party (CCP)’s top leadership echelons leading to the decision to try and browbeat India into submission and, if necessary, use military force. India’s refusal to yield ground, or seek to compromise its way out as anticipated by China on the basis of past record, would have prompted the rethink to opt for de-escalation.
　　Finally, the important 19th Party Congress scheduled to be held in October-November 2017, makes Xi Jinping politically vulnerable. Xi Jinping has used ideology and nationalism as his main instruments to strengthen the CCP’s monopoly on power and boost his personal authority. He is also in the midst of implementing the most extensive reform the PLA has seen in its 90 years of existence, and could not afford to take the chance that in case he orders the PLA to ‘teach India a lesson’ it is unable to secure a decisive victory or suffers a bloody nose. Smarting at the setback, the PLA and Xi Jinping will in all probability look for a way to retrieve hurt pride.
　　Jayadeva Ranade is a former additional secretary in the cabinet secretariat, Government of India and is presently president of the Centre for China Analysis and Strategy
http://www.hindustantimes.com/opinion/doklam-defused-why-it-will-take-a-lot-of-effort-for-india-china-to-rebuild-ties/story-M2DnrlPPufEfupR8BK1fkL.html

Washington Post：Who blinked in China-India military standoff?
　　By Annie Gowen and Simon Denyer August 30 at 6:26 AM
　　A Chinese soldier stands next to an Indian soldier at the Nathu La border in India’s northeastern Sikkim state, near the border with China, in 2008. (Diptendu Dutta/AFP/Getty)
　　BEIJING — For weeks, China’s Foreign Ministry had been vehement in its denunciations of India and insistence that New Delhi unconditionally withdraw troops that had trespassed into Chinese territory. Don’t underestimate us, China repeatedly insisted, we are prepared for military conflict if need be.
　　Yet on Monday it appeared as though Beijing, not New Delhi, had blinked.
　　Both sides withdrew troops to end the stand-off. Crucially, military sources told Indian newspapers that China has also withdrawn the bulldozers that were constructing a road on the plateau. That road, built on land contested between Bhutan and China, had been the reason Indian troops had entered the disputed area in the first place, in defense of its ally Bhutan.
　　The eventual deal allowed both sides to save face — India’s Ministry of External Affairs suggested in its statement that it had stuck to its “principled position” in the discussions, which was that road-building violated ongoing terms of a current boundary dispute between Bhutan and China.
　　Yet some experts said it was premature to start declaring victory, and China continued to be cagey in its official remarks.
　　China insisted its troops would continue to patrol and garrison the disputed area, as well as continue to exercise its sovereign rights there. China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman said Tuesday that the country would make plans for road construction “in accordance with the situation on the ground.”
　　Then, on Wednesday, China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, appeared to chide India, saying, “We of course hope that India could learn some lessons from this, and [hope] events similar to this one would not happen again.”
　　There is precedence for China not sticking to agreements. In 2012, China and the Philippines agreed to withdraw naval vessels around Scarborough Shoal in a deal brokered by the United States. The Chinese ships never left, and have controlled it since.
　　Two factors may have helped talk China down and away from conflict — according to Indian media, Bhutan had been quietly resolute in talks with Beijing that it considered the Chinese road to be an infringement of a 2012 deal between the two countries that neither would develop infrastructure in disputed areas.
　　The second was a summit of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) nations due to be hosted by China this weekend. Beijing sets great store in set-piece summits of this nature, and the embarrassing possibility that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi might not attend may have focused minds in Beijing. India said Tuesday that Modi would, in fact, be attending the summit in Fujian province Sept. 3 to 5.
　　In India, news outlets painted Monday’s stand-down as a win for Indian diplomacy and their behind-the-scenes efforts to defuse tension before bullets flew. In China, the state media has also tried to paint the resolution as a victory for Asia and diplomacy — while staying vague about whether that road would still be built.
　　On social media, though, some Netizens asked uncomfortable questions.
　　“India withdrawing troops is a fact, did we give up some legitimate rights such as building road, this is what citizens care about, our focus is whether India’s withdrawal is unconditional, hope there is a clear explanation,” one user on China’s social media platform Weibo posted after news of the standoff.