2017 China India Border Standoff

The 2017 China India border standoff or Doklamstandoff refers to the military border standoff between the Indian armed forcesand the People's Liberation Army of China over construction of a road inDoklam, known as Donglang, or Donglang Caochang (meaning Donglang pasture orgrazing field), in Chinese. On 16 June 2017 Chinese troops with construction vehiclesand road-building equipment began extending an existing road southward inDoklam, a territory which is claimed by both China as well as India's allyBhutan. On 18 June 2017, around 270 Indian troops, with weapons and twobulldozers, entered Doklam to stop the Chinese troops from constructing theroad.On the 28th of August Indian media sources claimed that the dispute hasbeen resolved with both sides withdrawing their military forces.

India-China standoff in Doklam

Background

 Doklam is an area disputed between China and Bhutanlocated near their tri-junction with India.Unlike China and Bhutan, India doesnot claim Doklam but supports Bhutan's claim.

China's claim on Doklam is based on the 1890Convention of Calcutta between China and Britain, which states in Article I:

The boundary of Sikkim and Tibet shall be the crestof the mountain range separating the waters flowing into the Sikkim Teesta andits affluents from the waters flowing into the Tibetan Mochu and northwardsinto other Rivers of Tibet. The line commences at Mount Gipmochi on the Bhutanfrontier, and follows the above-mentioned water-parting to the point where itmeets Nipal territory.

China asserts that by this Convention, the startingpoint of the Sikkim-Tibet border is "Mount Gipmochi on the Bhutanfrontier" and that this clearly defines the tri-junction point.As perChinese claims, Doklam is located in the Xigaze area of Tibet, bordering thestate of Sikkim However Bhutan was not a party to the Convention.

In 1949, Bhutan signed a treaty with India giving allowanceto India to guide its diplomatic and defense affairs. In 2007, the treaty wassuperseded by a new Friendship Treaty that replaced the provision that made itmandatory for Bhutan to take India's guidance on foreign policy, providedbroader sovereignty but also stated in its Article 2

In keeping with the abiding ties of closefriendship and cooperation between Bhutan and India, the Government of theKingdom of Bhutan and the Government of the Republic of India shall cooperateclosely with each other on issues relating to their national interests.

From 1958, Chinese maps started showing large partsof Bhutanese territory as part of China.Localized tensions arose in the 1960sbut in the 1970s negotiations between China and Bhutan, with India sometimesplayed a supporting role, failed to create a consensus on the status of theDoklam plateau. Bhutan and China have held 24 rounds of boundary talks sincethey began in 1984, with notable agreements reached in 1988 and 1998, thelatter also prohibiting the use of force and encouraging both parties to strictlyadhere to peaceful means.

In the early 2000s, China built a road up theSinchela pass (in undisputed territory) and then over the plateau (in disputedterritory), leading up to the Doka La pass, until reaching within 68 metresdistance to the Indian border post on the Sikkim border. Here, they constructeda turn-around facilitating vehicles to turn back. This road has been inexistence at least since 2005.It is the southward extension of this road thathas sparked the 2017 standoff.

Events

On 16 June 2017 Chinese troops with construction vehicles androad-building equipment began extending an existing road southward on theDoklam plateau

On 18 June 2017, around 270 Indian troops, with weapons and twobulldozers, entered Doklam to stop the Chinese troops from constructing theroad.

On 29 June 2017, Bhutan protested to China against the construction of aroad in the disputed territory. According to the Bhutanese government, Chinaattempted to extend a road that previously terminated at Doka La towards theBhutan Army camp at Zornpelri near the Jampheri Ridge 2 km to the south; thatridge, viewed as the border by China but as wholly within Bhutan by both Bhutanand India, extends eastward approaching India's highly-strategic Siliguricorridor.The Bhutanese border was reportedly put on high alert and bordersecurity was tightened as a result of the growing tensions.

On the same day, China Foreign Ministry released a map depicting Doklamas part of China. Using the map as illustration, China's Spokesperson Lu Kangread Article I of the 1890 Convention of Calcutta and asserted that it provedthat the Donglang (Doklam) area, a territory North East of Gipmochi as shown onthe map, belongs to China.

On 30 June, Ministry of External Affairs of India released the statemententitled Recent Developments in Doklam Area stating its official position.Itcharges China of changing status quo in violation of a 2012 understandingbetween the two governments regarding finalizing the tri-junction boundarypoints and causing security concerns, widely understood as at its strategicSiliguri Corridor.[30] It says that "Indian personnel" at Doka Lacoordinated with Bhutan and "approached the Chinese construction party andurged them to desist from changing the status quo."

On 30 June, answering a question about Bhutan's protest, China'sSpokesperson Lu Kang made the following statement about Doklam's history afterasserting that the area where the construction activities are underway istotally under the jurisdiction of China because it is completely located on theChinese side of the China-Bhutan traditional customary line.

Before the 1960s, if border inhabitants of Bhutan wanted to herd inDoklam, they needed the consent of the Chinese side and had to pay the grasstax to China. Nowadays the Xi Zang Tibet Archives still retain some receipts ofthe grass tax.

On 3 July 2017, China Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang statedthat former Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru accepted the 1890Britain–China treaty.

On September 26 of the same year, when writing back to Premier ZhouEnlai, Prime Minister Nehru unequivocally stated "the boundary betweenSikkim and Xi Zang, China was defined by the 1890 Convention. This boundary wasdemarcated in 1895. There is no dispute over the boundary between Sikkim and XiZang (Tibet), China".

Indian media reported that Nehru’s 26 September 1959 letter to Zhou,cited by China, was in fact a point-by-point refutation of the claims made bythe Zhou on 8 September 1959. In the letter, which was accessed by Indian pressalbeit not published in its entirety, Nehru wrote.

This Convention of 1890 also defined the boundary between Sikkim andTibet; and the boundary was later, in 1895, demarcated. There is thus nodispute regarding the boundary of Sikkim with the Tibet region.

China Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang replied to India media'squestion about disputed tri-junction with the following comment.

 The so-called tri-junction, as the name suggests, is a point. It is nota line, much less an area. India misinterprets tri-junction point as an area,from ulterior motives. This time, the trespassing point of Indian army, is onthe Sikkim-China border, which is 2000 metres away from the tri-junction point,Mount Gipmochi, by the 1890 Treaty.

On 5 July 2017, the Chinese government said that it had for the past 24months a basic consensus with Bhutan that Doklam belongs to China, and therewas no dispute between the two countries.

On 19 July 2017, China renewed its call for India to withdraw its troopsfrom Doklam.

On 24 July 2017, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told reporters that itis very clear who is right and who is wrong in the standoff in Doklam, and thateven senior Indian officials have publicly said that Chinese troops have notintruded into Indian territory."In other words, India admitted that it hasentered Chinese territory. The solution to this issue is simple, which is thatthey behave themselves and withdraw," Wang said.

 On 2 August 2017, the Chinese foreign ministry released a 15-pageofficial position statement The Facts and China's Position Concerning theIndian Border Troops' Crossing of the China-India Boundary in the Sikkim Sectorinto the Chinese Territory.According to this document, there were still over 40Indian troops and one bulldozer in Doklam (Donglang) region.Beijing accusedIndia of using Bhutan as "a pretext" to interfere and impede theboundary talks between China and Bhutan. The report referred to India's"trespassing" into Doklam as a violation of the territorialsovereignty of China as well as a challenge to the sovereignty and independenceof Bhutan.China says in the 15-page document that it notified India regardingits plan to construct road "in advance in full reflection of China’sgoodwill".

 On 3 August 2017, China charged with four reasons that "India iscertainly not for peace" though it always puts peace on its lips.

 On 4 August 2017, The Ministry of External Affairs of India refused toconfirm or deny when asked why, if India received notification from China inadvance on its plan to construct road, it had not used diplomatic channelsbefore sending its troops across the border since it was asking for diplomaticsolution.

On 8 August 2017, Chinese diplomat Wang Wenli claimed that Bhutan hadconveyed to China through diplomatic channels that the area of the standoff isnot its territory, saying, "After the incident, the Bhutanese made it veryclear to us that the place where the trespassing happened is not Bhutan’sterritory." On the next day, the Bhutanese government denied this, sayingover the phone "Our position on the border issue of Doklam is veryclear" and referring to the governments 29 June statement.

On 15 August 2017, several Indian and Chinese soldiers were alleged tohave been injured after a melee broke out between them when a group of Chinesesoldiers were alleged to have attempted to infiltrate across the border nearPangong Lake into Indian controlled territory in Ladakh.An Indian intelligenceofficer said the confrontation occurred after Indian soldiers intercepted aChinese patrol that veered into Indian-held territory after losing its wayapparently due to bad weather.

16 August 2017, the state run news agency released a segment of itsshow "The Spark" on Twitter racially attacking India, the video namedthe "Seven Sins of India" portrayed a stereotypical Indian with aturbanand beard and a typical Indian accent, the segment spoke of Indianshaving "thick skin" and "pretending to sleep" on the matterof the border standoff between the two countries. The video went on to claimIndia was physically threatening Bhutan, and compared India to a "robberwho breaks into a house and does not leave". The content of the video werefactually incorrect. The video has received strong backlash on Twitter as wellas from the international media

Disengagement 

On 28 August 2017, India and China have announced that they have agreedto pull their troops back from the face-off in Doklam. Both the countries alsosaid that they would continue to patrol the Doklam area, as they used to dobefore the standoff.

 Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) of India released a press statementstating that India and China had mutually agreed to disengage. The MEAspokesperson of India said that in numerous meetings between the Indian andChinese officials in the past couple of months, India has been successful inconveying its "concerns and interests". In Beijing, the foreignministry spokeswoman has said that the Chinese forces have verified that theIndian troops pulled out. While she said that the Chinese troops would continueto patrol the area, she made no mention of road-building activities. An IndianTV station issued a breaking news bulletin that said: “Diplomatic win overChina”, while a Chinese news media portrayed the agreement as a victory forChina and a sign that the nation was acting as a “responsible big country” inhandling global affairs. Indian MEA issued a second statement later in the daythat both the sides have withdrawn "under verification". The Times ofIndia reported that, by the end of the day, Chinese road-building equipment wasremoved from the face-off site, while The Washington Post reported that it wasnot clear from the countries’ public statements whether Beijing had offered anyconcessions in return for the Indian withdrawal, such as agreeing to haltconstruction of the road. Some experts warned that one shouldn't be overlyoptimistic as another standoff is entirely possible.