DTN News - CHINA'S AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR WITH ITS NEIGHBORS OVER TERRITORIAL DISPUTES: 50 Chinese Soldiers on Horses And Ponies Intrude Indian Territory

DTN News - CHINA'S AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR WITH ITS NEIGHBORS OVER TERRITORIAL DISPUTES: 50 Chinese Soldiers on Horses And Ponies Intrude Indian Territory

Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources Times of India

(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - July 21, 2013: Riding on horses and ponies, around 50 Chinese soldiers intruded into the Indian territory of Chumar in Ladakh on July 16 staking their claim over the area. 

The Chinese troops started their incursion in the Chumar area on the evening of July 16 and they remained in the Indian area till the morning of July 17, sources said. 

Army sources confirmed the incursion saying that Indian troops had intercepted the PLA patrol in the Chumar area and after the usual banner drill between the two sides, the PLA patrol went back into their territory. 

Sources said the intruding Chinese soldiers asked the Indian soldiers to vacate the area claiming that they were standing in Chinese territory. 

The incursion by Chinese land forces comes soon after its two helicopters violated Indian air space on July 11 in the Chumar sector. 

In the same area, PLA troops had intruded and taken away an Indian surveillance camera on June 17. 

The latest incursion took place on the day when India gave approval to the creation of a 50,000-strong Mountain Strike Corps along the border with China. 

The frequency of such incidents increased around the time Defence Minister A K Antony went to China earlier this month and the two countries discussed measures to enhance peace and tranquillity along the Line of Actual Control between them. 

Chumar, located 300km from Leh, has always been an area of discomfort for the Chinese troops as this is the only area along the China-India border where they do not have any direct access to the LAC. 

India and China have been working towards signing a border pact to maintain peace and tranquillity along the LAC where a number of incursion incidents have been observed in recent months. 

*Link for This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources Times of India
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News 
*Photograph: IPF (International Pool of Friends) + DTN News / otherwise source stated
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News Contact:dtnnews@ymail.com 
©COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS

DTN News - CHINA'S AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR WITH ITS NEIGHBORS OVER TERRITORIAL DISPUTES: Japan Says Faces Increasing threats From China, North Korea

DTN News - CHINA'S AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR WITH ITS NEIGHBORS OVER TERRITORIAL DISPUTES: Japan Says Faces Increasing threats From China, North Korea

Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources By Kiyoshi Takenaka - Reuters
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - July 9, 2013:  Japan faces increasingly serious threats to its security from an assertive China and an unpredictable North Korea, the defense ministry said in its first annual report since hawkish Prime Minister Shinzo Abe took office.

The report was harshly critical of China's actions in waters near East China Sea islets claimed by both countries, and prompted a sharp response from Beijing, where a foreign ministry spokeswoman said Japan was exaggerating the threat to "artificially create regional tension and confrontation."

Sino-Japanese relations have been strained by the territorial row as well as remarks from Abe suggesting he wants to cast Tokyo's wartime history in a less apologetic tone.

"There are various issues and destabilizing factors in the security environment surrounding Japan, some of which are becoming increasingly tangible, acute and serious," said the defense white paper, issued as ruling party politicians call for the Japanese military to beef up its ability to respond.

The general commanding a Japanese airborne brigade whose paratroopers would be among the first troops to respond to an attack on a far-flung island, told Reuters his unit could benefit from better intelligence gathering tools, including drones.

"For any island operation, intelligence is crucial," Tadao Maeda, commanding general of the 1st Airborne Brigade, said in an interview. At present, his unit relies on intelligence from ground or maritime forces. Japan has allocated funds in this year's budget to look into possible acquisition of drones.

The defense ministry report said: "China has attempted to change the status quo by force based on its own assertion, which is incompatible with the existing order of international law," echoing recent comments by Abe and his cabinet.

"China should accept and stick to the international norms."

The row over rival claims to tiny East China Sea islets flared up last September after Japan nationalized the isles, known as the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu in China.

Patrol ships from both countries routinely shadow each other near the islands, raising concerns that an unintended collision or other incident could lead to a broader clash.

"Some of China's activities involve its intrusion into Japan's territorial waters, its violation of Japan's territorial airspace and even dangerous actions that could cause a contingency, and are extremely regrettable," the paper said.

Japan said in February that a Chinese naval vessel had locked its fire control radar on a Japanese destroyer, a step that can be considered a step away from actual firing.

China denied the warship had locked its radar on the Japanese vessel. But the white paper said Beijing's assertion was "inconsistent with the facts".

Commenting on the defense report, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said it contained "false criticisms" and followed growing calls in Japan to strengthen the military.

"The international community cannot but be concerned by Japan's real intentions and its future development," she said. "We hope that Japan can correct its attitude."

BOLSTERING DEFENCE

Abe returned to power for a rare second term after his ruling bloc won a general election late last year, promising to revive the economy and strengthen Japan's defenses. He also wants to revise the post-World War Two pacifist constitution to legitimize the military, although winning support for contentious revisions is likely to take time.

Japan is already bolstering defense of the disputed islands and this year raised its defense budget for the first time in 11 years.

The military is conducting joint drills with the United States, its main security ally, and fortifying defenses against missile attacks, while the government is reviewing its mid-term defense policy.

Japan plans to draw up a new defense plan by December, and Abe's Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) submitted recommendations to the government last month that included looking into acquiring the capability to attack enemy targets.

Japan has long maintained that it has the right to strike enemy targets when an intention to attack Japan is clear, the threat is imminent and there are no other options.

But any sign that Japan is moving to obtain such capabilities could upset China and South Korea, where resentment against Japan's wartime aggression and colonization runs deep.

"The balance of power will be lost if we don't start considering striking back when attacked," said Osaka University professor Kazuya Sakamoto, who sits on a panel advising Abe on security policies.

The LDP has also recommended that the military should set up an amphibious Marines division equipped with tilt-rotor aircraft like the V-22 Osprey to boost the defense of remote islands.

Maeda backed the proposal to acquire the U.S. aircraft, whose deployment to Japan's Okinawa island has prompted local opposition because of concerns about its safety.

"For the airborne, the Osprey is a very attractive piece of hardware," he told Reuters. Japan has set aside about $80,000 in this year's defense budget to research the possible acquisition.

Abe, whose LDP is expected to cement its grip on power in this month's upper house election, also wants to revise an interpretation of the constitution that bans using the right of collective self-defense, or aiding an ally under attack.

A panel set up during Abe's first 2006-7 term recommended that the ban be lifted in certain cases, such as intercepting ballistic missiles bound for the United States. A new committee of advisers is expected to reach similar conclusions.

North Korea launched a missile in December, stepping up the threat that the isolated, impoverished state poses to rivals. In February, it conducted a third nuclear test, which moved Pyongyang closer to developing long-range nuclear missiles.

"The launch of a missile ... showed that North Korea has advanced its technologies to extend the range and improve the accuracy of ballistic missiles," the white paper said.

(This story corrects the name of the Chinese spokeswoman in the 14th paragraph)

(Additional reporting by Ben Blanchard in BEIJING; Editing by Linda Sieg and Raju Gopalakrishnan)

*Link for This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources By Kiyoshi Takenaka - Reuters
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News 
*Photograph: IPF (International Pool of Friends) + DTN News / otherwise source stated
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News Contact:dtnnews@ymail.com 
©COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS

DTN News - DEFENSE NEWS: China-India Border Talks Pivot On Tibet

DTN News - DEFENSE NEWS: China-India Border Talks Pivot On Tibet

Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources  By Namrata Goswami and Jenee Sharon 
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - April 23, 2013: Throughout the protracted Sino-Indian border dispute, Tibet and its status has always been a predominant influence, whether implicitly or explicitly on the negotiating table. This has both historical and contemporary ramifications. 

India, much to China's chagrin, utilized the Tibet issue as a key point of departure in order to strike a grand bargain with Beijing after China occupied Tibet in 1949. Jawaharlal Nehru was of the firm conviction that China and India could encapsulate a grand cooperation in Tibet based on which India would recognize Tibet as part of China while China would recognize Tibetan autonomy. 

To Nehru, Tibetan autonomy meant safeguarding Tibet's cultural and social uniqueness. It also meant that China would not militarize Tibet with a massive People's Liberation Army (PLA) presence which could pose a security threat to India. 

Propelled by this belief, Nehru recognized Tibet as part of China in 1954. Mao Zedong, however, interpreted Nehru's insistence on Tibetan autonomy as a diabolical plan to turn Tibet into an Indian "protectorate or colony". In the several meetings that he conducted with his Politburo colleagues in the run-up to the 1962 war with India, he argued that the "Indian expansionist" had devious plans to occupy Tibet. 

In an essay titled "The Revolution in Tibet and Nehru's Philosophy", published in The People's Daily on May 6, 1959, at the behest of Mao, Nehru was faulted for his sympathy for the Tibetan people and accused of upholding the Tibetan upper-class structure to the detriment of what the essay termed as "Tibetan serfs". 

Nehru, the essay argued, wanted to turn Tibet into an "Indian colony". By extension, India's "forward policy" activated since November 1961 to establish forward posts in unoccupied territory that China and India each viewed as its own was also interpreted by Mao as an Indian design to create the logistical conditions to occupy Tibet in the long run. 

These differences and a "no-negotiation" posture by India on the border from 1961 onwards in the face of what Nehru interpreted as Chinese aggression on Aksai Chin led to the China-India border war in October 1962 in which India suffered defeat. 

While both countries have come a long way since then, having re-activated diplomatic relations in 1976 and border negotiations since 1981, the border talks were stalled at this stage due to increased Chinese territorial posture in 1985 especially with regard to Tawang. In 1988, a Joint Working Group (JWG) was institutionalized during the visit of Rajiv Gandhi to China. 

At present, there is talk of "progress" on the border issues and statements from high-level officials representing both parties on not letting the border dispute affect the bilateral working relationship. Yet, both China and India remain deeply entrenched in their rigid negotiating positions. 

The border dispute, especially in the eastern side, is becoming financially costly to both parties, particularly as resources are diverted to build up militarily at the border to deter the other while additional political resources are utilized to continue the negotiations in official diplomatic fora. 

India has planned to invest US$100 billion in military modernization in the next decade, with $15 billion already under negotiations for 126 French Rafale Multi Medium Role Combat Aircraft to be deployed in the eastern sector. China has also visibly demonstrated its military presence in Tibet with nearly 300,000 PLA troops and fighter aircraft like the J-10 deployed at the Gonggar airport in Lhasa. Military exercises by both China and India along the eastern frontier have also increased since 2012. 

The territorial dispute has lingered for decades, crippling the bilateral relationship and thus preventing the two countries from working as closely together as could have been possible had the border dispute been resolved. The bottom line: as China and India rise as global powers, now is the time to pursue real conflict resolution on the border dispute. 

The border dispute will only continue to divert resources and time from both countries which could better contribute to enhance China and India on their way to becoming stronger global actors on the world stage. 

Why is the border dispute so intractable and why has it continually resisted resolution in the past 60 years? The answer is threefold - the inflexibility of negotiation positions, the choice of conflict resolution mechanisms utilized, and the mistrust that perpetuates and further prevents progress from being made toward a lasting resolution. 

With regard to flexibility, at present, both parties seemingly remain firmly committed to their territorial claims and these claims are at times strategically utilized as leverage in the negotiations. China maintains its claim to Arunachal Pradesh, which India has administered since the British left India in 1947, while India seeks control of Aksai Chin, which is under Chinese control. 

Despite China's claims, India firmly maintains that Arunachal Pradesh is and will remain Indian territory, while implicitly utilizing the Tibet issue and India's spiritual connection to the Dalai Lama, a great insecurity for China, as leverage. 

The Tibet issue is distinctly intertwined with the greater Sino-Indian border dispute along the borders of Arunachal Pradesh because China maintains that Tibet is an integral part of Chinese sovereign territory and considers Arunachal Pradesh to be "Southern Tibet". 

Recently, a Chinese scholar from Huazhong University, Du Dacai, argued that "solving the problem of our territory of South Tibet [as China refers to Arunachal Pradesh]" should be China's fourth priority territorial unification issue after Taiwan, the Diaoyu (or Senkaku) Islands and the South China sea issue "to realize the Chinese dream and China's unification." 

This conceptualization of "Southern Tibet," whether legitimate in the minds of the Chinese or a negotiation tactic to try to gain control of Arunachal Pradesh from India, links the Tibet issue to the border dispute because if China and India's borders are to be delineated, Tibet's borders with India must also be determined. 

The fact that Tibet's status within China itself is not accepted by many Tibetans and that the Tibetan government-in-exile and Dalai Lama reside in India, threatens China. This also contributes to the intensity of mistrust among both parties and complicates the already complex process of negotiating the disputed borders. 

In order to resolve the dispute through negotiations, both China and India should seek to take another evaluation of their core interests and determine possible areas of flexibility on certain issues. 

The Tibet issue is also incredibly important to both China and India because the Tibetans' struggle for independence affects both countries greatly from a national security standpoint. China views the Tibetans' struggle for independence as a great source of instability because it directly threatens China's domestic social stability and territorial integrity. 

India's spiritual connection to the Dalai Lama and tenuous relationship with the Tibetan government in exile further exacerbates this insecurity. The Indian government has made public statements expressing India's "official" policy of not supporting the Tibetans or the Dalai Lama, such as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's comments that "India will not allow Tibetans to conduct anti-China activities in the country [India]", but India may hesitate to make further statements regarding the status of Tibet while China is pressuring India to do so. Despite these official statements, the Dalai Lama holds spiritual significance in India, thus making China more dubious about India's intentions. 

In this respect, India isn't exactly helping to resolve that tension by refusing to make bolder statements on China's claim to Tibet, and from the Indian perspective, why should it? From a purely bargaining perspective, India retains more leverage to potentially use against China to gain concessions in the border negotiations. The real issue here is that ultimately, this play for leverage further breaks down trust and makes the process of negotiating more difficult. 

Another key issue at play, is that of Tawang, which is in Arunachal Pradesh, closely linked to the Tibet issue and considered to be a holy place for Tibetans. This further complicates the Tibet issue and thus the overall border negotiations because if Tibet is a part of China and Tibetans consider Tawang to be culturally linked to Tibet, then China has an incentive for why it should obtain Arunachal Pradesh from India in the negotiations. 

If Tibetans seek independence from China, this claim becomes less legitimate, but as the Tibetan government-in-exile and Dalai Lama currently reside in India, it again causes insecurity for China. India has likely recognized this concern and in response to China's aggressive posturing towards Arunachal Pradesh, India has increased the civilian and military presence in that area, similar to what China has done in increasing the Han Chinese and PLA presence in Tibet. 

Another key concern on the Tawang issue is whether the next Dalai Lama will come from Tawang, and if so, will that further complicate the Tibet issue and tensions between China and India if China does not approve of the new Dalai Lama? The Dalai Lama will always have spiritual connections with India, even if the current Dalai Lama has renounced former political ties, and given that it is a religious issue, it is not plausible that India would break these spiritual and cultural ties it has historically respected. 

As long as the Tibet issue remains unresolved and the questioning of Chinese legitimacy over Tibet continues, China remains fearful of India's intentions for Tibet, and as long as India does not make those intentions more clear, it will be increasingly more difficult to resolve the ongoing border dispute. 

Although China and India have made progress in developing economic and diplomatic relationships with an attempt to disregard the Tibet issue, the border issue is time and time again raised. The current pace of negotiations has not resulted in progress on the resolution of the border dispute. 

China and India have less to lose and more to gain by rethinking how to resolve this dispute. First off, the mechanisms for resolution should be expanded. On their own, the Special Representative talks set up since 2003 may not be enough to come to a mutually beneficial negotiated solution. 

There are other possibilities for creating a common border mechanism outside of the Special Representative talks to supplement conflict resolution efforts, such as talks on the Track I5 levels. Within the field of conflict resolution, one such conflict resolution method is known as the "Problem-Solving Workshop" (PSW). 

The PSW emerged from the field of social psychology and was pioneered by several scholars and practitioners including Herbert Kelman, John Burton, Benjamin Broome, Ronald Fisher, and Leonard Doob. This method of conflict resolution was designed to bring together influential people who have connections to high-level decision makers but the flexibility to more freely discuss the key issues, various parties' perspectives, and explore creative options for conflict resolution, all the while building trust among the participants. 

In the beginning, this could be conducted as unofficial sessions internally within India and China respectively to explore key issues and perspectives before meeting with their counterparts. Once the participants become comfortable with the process, Indian and Chinese influentials could be brought together to engage in a PSW on the border issue. 

In addition to PSW among influentials, a forum should be created between the think tanks and academic communities (Track II) in China and India to bring together the brightest minds working on these issues. While there are many within both China and India who work on these issues and related ones, there is little sharing or joint work among these individuals and groups together. 

A joint forum, roundtable discussion or partnership among think tanks working on these issues would act as a way in which to collective brainstorm with a problem-solving approach to determine options for resolution of the border dispute. 

At this point in time, it is clear that official negotiations alone may not resolve the border dispute. Additional mechanisms of conflict resolution like the Track II should be sought after, and if deemed appropriate by each party internally, Problem Solving Workshops and partnerships among those working on these issues may provide additional methods in which to unofficially explore options that could be proposed to the negotiators with an aim at resolving the border dispute. 

Dr Namrata Goswami is a senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), Washington, DC and research fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi. Jenee Sharon is a research assistant at the USIP. The views expressed in this article are solely that of the authors. 

*Link for This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources By Namrata Goswami and Jenee Sharon 
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News 
*Photograph: IPF (International Pool of Friends) + DTN News / otherwise source stated
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News Contact:dtnnews@ymail.com 
©COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS