The Sino-Indian border dispute in Sikkim has shown no sign of de-escalation since the middle of June. China and Bhutan, India’s closest ally, accused each other of violating diplomatic agreements that claimed to preserve the “status quo.”
Since New Delhi refused to back down, Beijing has mobilized domestic opinion, calling for a small-scale military campaign against Indian troops in Doklam.
This border imbroglio has posed serious challenges to the leadership of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
As strong and visionary leaders, both have projected themselves as rising statesmen globally and regionally. They seize any opportunity to appear on an equal footing with US, European and Russian leaders in international summits.
Proclaiming to place their national interests above everything, they construct an appealing image of charisma, competence and charm at home and abroad.
If Xi and Modi fail to act as the guardians of territorial sovereignty, they will find it hard to pacify domestic opponents and hold onto their leadership. This immensely unattainable objective limits the actions these ambitious leaders can take to resolve the border conflict.
With the exception of the early 1950s, relations between China and India have been fraught with territorial conflicts and geopolitical rivalries.
Sino-Indian border disputes originated from Beijing’s rejection of the British-drawn McMahon Line of 1913-1914, which separated India from Tibet.
During the 1962 border war, China caught India off-guard, seizing 38,000km2 of Indian territory in Aksai Chin and another 5,180km2 of northern Kashmir that Pakistan ceded to Beijing under a 1963 pact.
Supporting Pakistan during the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War, China sought to contain India south of the Himalayas. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, continuous Chinese arms transfers to Pakistan indicated their close military ties.
Despite a brief Sino-Indian rapprochement after a visit by then-Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi to Beijing in 1988, China was reluctant to sacrifice its partnership with Pakistan. The idea of a “two-front threat” (Pakistan in the west and China in the north and northeast) deepened Indian leaders’ concerns about China’s containment policy.
Indian policymakers view China as an interloper in South Asia, an external superpower that deliberately challenges India’s natural sphere of influence. All Chinese geostrategic maneuvers are deemed as consolidating its control over South Asia.
In response to the Chinese encirclement, India has pursued security relations with China’s neighbors in the Pacific Ocean, especially Taiwan, Vietnam and Japan. Yet these maritime strategies fail to counter China’s growing influence in the Himalayas.
At a time when the US is reluctant to take leadership in resolving the North Korean nuclear crisis and the South China Sea disputes, China seeks to fill the power vacuum in global politics and regards South Asia as the next legitimate frontier for flexing its muscles.
Without an institutional mechanism under international law to address the overlapping claims in the Himalayas, the Doklam border stand-off has highlighted the irreconcilable disagreements between China and India over control of continental space — such as mountains and plateaus — and over jurisdiction related to disputes taking place in these territories.
Unless a multilateral framework capable of mediating conflicts is established, the Doklam border incident is destined to become a new front line for Sino-Indian rivalries and the escalating tensions could cause severe diplomatic and military rifts.
Joseph T.H. Lee is professor of history at Pace University in New York City.
For Taipei, last year was a particularly dangerous period, with China stepping up coercive pressures on Taiwan amid signs of US President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline, which eventually led his Democratic Party to force him to abandon his re-election campaign. The political drift in the US bred uncertainty in Taiwan and elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific region about American strategic commitment and resolve. With America deeply involved in the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, the last thing Washington wanted was a Taiwan Strait contingency, which is why Biden invested in personal diplomacy with China’s dictator Xi Jinping (習近平). The return of
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a cornerstone of US foreign policy, advancing not only humanitarian aid but also the US’ strategic interests worldwide. The abrupt dismantling of USAID under US President Donald Trump ‘s administration represents a profound miscalculation with dire consequences for global influence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. By withdrawing USAID’s presence, Washington is creating a vacuum that China is eager to fill, a shift that will directly weaken Taiwan’s international position while emboldening Beijing’s efforts to isolate Taipei. USAID has been a crucial player in countering China’s global expansion, particularly in regions where
With the manipulations of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), it is no surprise that this year’s budget plan would make government operations difficult. The KMT and the TPP passing malicious legislation in the past year has caused public ire to accumulate, with the pressure about to erupt like a volcano. Civic groups have successively backed recall petition drives and public consensus has reached a fever-pitch, with no let up during the long Lunar New Year holiday. The ire has even breached the mindsets of former staunch KMT and TPP supporters. Most Taiwanese have vowed to use
Looking at the state of China’s economy this year, many experts have said that weak domestic demand and insufficient internal consumption might be its Achilles’ heel, with the latter being related to culture and demographics. Since Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) took office in 2013, he has been combating extravagance and corruption as well as rectifying a bad atmosphere. China expert Stephen Roach said the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) regulatory crackdown has been targeting Chinese tycoons, such as Alibaba Group Holding Ltd founder Jack Ma (馬雲), and opposing what the CCP defines as “excessively extravagant lifestyles,” such as playing too