No room for negotiations with India in Sikkim standoff, New Delhi will face ‘embarrassment’, says Chinese mouthpiece

July 16, 2017, 9:10 am
 No room for negotiations with India in Sikkim standoff, New Delhi will face ‘embarrassment’, says Chinese mouthpiece
WORLD
WORLD
 No room for negotiations with India in Sikkim standoff, New Delhi will face ‘embarrassment’, says Chinese mouthpiece

No room for negotiations with India in Sikkim standoff, New Delhi will face ‘embarrassment’, says Chinese mouthpiece

As the standoff India and China apparently gets murkier, Beijing has said there is “no room” for negotiations to resolve the military face-off and the only solution is the withdrawal of Indian troops from the Donglang or Doklam region. The comments came just days after thee Ministry of External Affairs said that diplomatic channels were “being used” to defuse the stand-off.

Ruling out any chance of solution through talks, China has said India will face “embarrassment” if it does not withdraw its border troops to its own side and the situation could get “worse”, the official Xinhua news agency said in a commentary on Saturday night.

China has made it clear that there is no room for negotiations on this incident, and India must withdraw its border-crossing troops from Doklam
Commentary by China’s Official New Agency

The commentary in China’s state-run official press agency, Xinhua reiterated that the “border line was the bottom line” for Beijing.

India has repeatedly ignored China’s call for pulling its border-crossing troops from Doklam area back to its own territory. However, turning a deaf ear to China will but worsen the month-long stand-off and put itself further into embarrassment
Commentary by China’s Official New Agency

Beijing also said India should not regard the existing situation as the same as or even similar to the previous two standoffs in 2013 and 2014 near Ladakh, a disputed area between China, Pakistan and India in southeastern Kashmir.

“Diplomatic efforts led the troop’s frictions there to a well-arranged end. But this time it is a totally different case,” the comeentary added.

The current face-off between the two troops is considered the longest in almost three decades, which began on 18 June, after Beijing said New Delhi had violated border agreements after Indian troops allegedly entered Doklam and stopped the Chinese Army from constructing a road. New Delhi continued to claim that the boundary is yet to be settled and asked China “to desist from changing the status quo”, referring to the road construction.

However, Xinhua said, the 18 June incident marked the first time India crossed the only “determined border between the two Asian countries”. “Many arguments and protests from China have failed to bring India back to reason. India has to know illegal stay of its troops in Doklam will by no means force a fait accompli there, and that it has to change its mind before things go even worse,” said the commentary.

The commentary further said that India had “lied” to the world by saying it dispatched troops to Donglang to help its ally Bhutan, whereas “apparently” Thimphu had extended no invitation to New Delhi to intervene.

“New Delhi claimed encroachment of its own territory by China before saying it sent troops to ’protect’ its ‘ally’ Bhutan, a sovereign state which has apparently so far made no such an invitation for the sake of that boundary area,” it reads.

Xinhua is an organ of the Chinese government and is affiliated to the State Council, the Communist country’s cabinet. Commentaries published by Xinhua and the People’s Daily, the Communist Party of China (CPC) mouthpiece, are taken to be a reflection of the thoughts of the government and the all-powerful CPC.

The External Affairs Ministry had hinted there is an ongoing effort to end it through diplomatic negotiations.

“China has a will to solve the problem peacefully by diplomatic means, and China also cherishes the peace and serenity in the border areas, but the precondition is that the trespassers of India must withdraw unconditionally.”