On April 27, the defense ministers of China and India held another intense but crucial bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the SCO Defense Ministers' Meeting. This is the second face-to-face meeting at the defense ministers' level since the Galwan Valley clashes in June 2020 and aims to resolve the deep differences between the two defense ministers. The meeting, held in New Delhi, became the first official meeting between State Councilor and Defense Minister Lee Sang-hok and the Indian defense minister since he took office.
Judging from the two recent meetings, the border issue has become a core topic of security and mutual trust between the two countries. However, the two sides have still not been able to break the deadlock and reach a consensus in the statement issued after the meeting, and the differences are still very large. According to a statement from China's Ministry of National Defense, Li Shangfu said, "The common interests of China and India far outweigh their differences, and the two sides should view the relations and mutual development of the two countries from a comprehensive, long-term and strategic perspective." At the same time, he stressed that the two sides should work together to continuously enhance mutual trust between the two militaries and contribute to the development of bilateral relations.
However, the statement of the Indian Ministry of Defense conveys a very different message. Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh sent a strong message to Chinese Defense Minister Li Shangfu that China's unilateral "violation" of existing agreements has eroded the "entire foundation" of bilateral relations. He made it clear that the premise for the improvement of relations between the two countries is the restoration of "peace and tranquility" in the border areas. Rajnath Singh also stressed that the issue of the Line of Actual Control (LAC) needs to be resolved in accordance with existing bilateral agreements and commitments.
China's expectations and India's insistence: a crisis in relations caused by the border issue.
It can be seen from the statements of the two countries that there are obvious differences between the two sides on the "border issue". China stresses the need to separate the border issue from the overall situation of bilateral relations, believing that the border issue is not the whole of bilateral relations. However, in the past few years, India has made the "border issue" a "premise" and regarded the restoration of "peace and tranquility" in the border areas as a "major premise" for the development of relations between the two countries.
Specifically, India's reference to "peace and tranquility" in the border areas is at odds with China's understanding. India demanded that the squadron be evacuated from specific areas under China's actual control, while China believed that this was the result of India's long-term "illegal crossing" patrols, and could not accept such a request. In addition, India has stressed the need to reduce the size of its combat forces in the border areas, which China sees as an effective measure to ensure "peace and tranquility" in the border areas.
There are three major uncertainties at the core: the obstacle to the resolution of the border issue between the two countries.
The differences between the two sides on the border issue are mainly reflected in three core issues. The first is whether the construction of border infrastructure follows the "principle of equal security". India has been promoting infrastructure activities in the border area, and China sees it as a "war" on the border. The second question is whether the "principle of equal security" is based on a static status quo or some kind of dynamic equilibrium development. This principle was at the heart of the 1993 and 1996 agreements between the two countries, but there were uncertainties. Finally, the agreement stipulates that "the two sides will maintain their respective military forces in the Line of Actual Control (LAC) at a minimum level compatible with the good-neighborly relations between the two countries", and there is also controversy over the characterization of "equal mutual security".
As a result of these three uncertainties, the gap between the two sides' understanding and practice of "peace and tranquility" has widened, which has been the main reason for the frequent friction in the border areas between the two countries since 2013.
India's Fallacies and Facts: The Truth Revealed by the Defense Ministers' Meeting.
India has repeatedly accused China of violating past agreements, but the truth is quite the opposite. China believes that the Galwan Valley incident is the result of India's long-term sabotage of the agreement, including the seizure of the eastern border area between China and India in 1999, the 2019 constitutional amendment to include the territory claimed by China in administrative division, and the arrival of Indian troops in May 2020 for patrols. Modi** tried to hijack the overall cooperation between the two countries on the border issue, but violated the consensus of the leaders of the two countries in 1988 and brought Sino-Indian relations to a low ebb.
The conundrum of moving forward: the sluggish state of China-India relations.
If India insists on deepening the overall situation of bilateral relations on the border issue, it will be difficult to get out of the current trough. China-India relations face three major shortcomings, namely, lack of forward momentum, lack of normal cooperation, and lack of strategic mutual trust. This is not only a formidable challenge for both countries, but could also lead to greater risks to regional stability and peace.
In the current context, China and India need to take the border issue seriously and find a way to solve it through dialogue and cooperation. Only through joint efforts can the two countries extricate themselves from their current predicament, establish stable and peaceful relations, and make positive contributions to the prosperity and tranquility of the region.
The border issue triggered by the bilateral meeting between the Chinese and Indian defense ministers has once again pushed tensions between the two countries into the spotlight. As can be seen from the article, there are significant differences between China and India in their understanding and handling of the border issue, which makes the two countries face severe challenges in terms of security and mutual trust.
First, the two countries have markedly different definitions of "peace and tranquility". China advocates separating the border issue from the overall relationship, believing that the border issue is not the whole of the relationship between the two countries. In contrast, India has made "peace and tranquility" a prerequisite for improving relations in the past few years, which has largely exacerbated the differences between the two sides. This divergence is not only a difference of views on specific issues, but also a different understanding of the overall diplomatic strategy.
Second, the construction of border defense infrastructure and the scale of combat troops stationed in border areas have become the focus of controversy between the two countries. India has stressed the need to reduce the size of combat units stationed in close proximity in border areas as a necessary measure to maintain "peace and tranquility". China, however, argues that such deployments are intended to effectively deter military advances in the border areas and thus maintain "peace and tranquility." This reflects the fundamental differences between the two sides on border management and military strategy.
The analysis of the three uncertainties mentioned by the Chinese side is also quite in-depth. In particular, whether the "principle of equal security for each other" is based on a static status quo or some kind of dynamic equilibrium development is related to how the two countries will dynamically abide by the principle of "equal security for each other" in the future, and is a key issue related to whether the relations between the two sides can be gradually eased.
The article forcefully refutes India's repeated accusations that China has violated the agreement. In fact, the Chinese side believes that the Galwan Valley incident is the result of India's long-term sabotage of the agreement, which involves India's encroachment on Chinese territory over the past few decades. This confrontational attitude has made the historical contradictions between the two countries even more prominent, and it is difficult to find common ground for solving the problem.
Finally, the article points out that China-India relations are currently facing a state of "three shortcomings", namely, a lack of forward momentum, normal cooperation, and strategic mutual trust. This shows that both sides have a deep dilemma in the current relationship and need to find a way out of the trough through dialogue and cooperation. As far as the two countries are concerned, only by working together and handling differences in a constructive manner can they hope to normalize relations and contribute to regional peace and stability.
Overall, the direction of China-India relations remains challenging, and the border issue has become an obstacle that is difficult for the two countries to overcome. Resolving differences and building mutual trust through dialogue is the only way for the two countries to stabilize their relations. It is hoped that in the future, China and India can resolve their differences in a rational and pragmatic manner and achieve win-win and mutually beneficial cooperation.
Disclaimer: The above content information is ** on the Internet, and the author of this article does not intend to target or insinuate any real country, political system, organization, race, or individual. The above content does not mean that the author of this article agrees with the laws, rules, opinions, behaviors in the article and is responsible for the authenticity of the relevant information. The author of this article is not responsible for any issues arising from the above or related issues, and does not assume any direct or indirect legal liability.
If the content of the article involves the content of the work, copyright**, infringement, rumors or other issues, please contact us to delete it. Finally, if you have any different thoughts about this event, please leave a message in the comment area to discuss!