Respond to EAM Jaishankar’s comments that Beijing had violated border agreements
China said on Thursday that “the responsibility lies entirely with the Indian side” for the situation along the Royal Line of Control (LAC), in response to the statement by Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar that China had violated border agreements by deploying large numbers of soldiers along the border.
Mr. Jaishankar said China had given India “five different explanations” for its unprecedented deployment of forces in LAC this summer, speaking in a virtual session with the Sydney-based Lowy Institute on Wednesday.
“We are probably today in the most difficult phase of our relationship with China, certainly in the last 30 or 40 years or one could argue even more,” he had said. He added that “the relationship this year has been damaged in a very significant way” by China’s violation of border agreements under which both sides would not deploy a large number of forces throughout LAC.
“Now, for some reason, why the Chinese have given us five different explanations to date, the Chinese have violated it,” he said. “The Chinese have literally brought tens of thousands of soldiers in full military readiness mode directly to the LAC in Ladakh. Naturally, the relationship would be deeply disturbed by this. “
In Beijing, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hua Chunying, responding to a question about his statement, said that “the merits of the situation” were “very clear.”
“China and India are neighbors and the two largest emerging markets in the world and maintaining good relations serves the fundamental interests of both countries and their people, but requires common efforts from both sides,” Hua said.
“The merits of the situation in the border area are very clear and the responsibility lies entirely with the Indian side. China has been strictly observing the agreements signed between the two parties and committed to resolving the border issue through dialogue and we are committed to safeguarding regional peace and tranquility in the border areas … But like all sovereign states, we are determined to safeguard our territorial integrity. So, on the Indian side, I think this is a serious question that I should ponder. “
Mr. Jaishankar also made it clear that it was impossible for the relationship to continue normally given the situation in LAC.
“We are very clear that maintaining peace and tranquility in LAC is the basis for the rest of the relationship to advance,” he said. “You cannot have the type of situation you have on the border and say that we continue with life in all other sectors of activity. It’s unrealistic. “
However, the Chinese side has sought in recent statements to delink the border situation from other aspects of the relationship, such as economic ties, and called on India to put the border dispute in an “appropriate” position, a view that India has said is Unsustainable as peace on the border was a prerequisite for the relationship.
China has so far also shown no willingness to return to the status quo prior to May’s multiple transgressions by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The two sides have held eight rounds of corps commander-level talks, the last of which was held on November 6, but they have yet to agree on a plan to withdraw.
Ms Hua repeated that view on putting border tensions in a “proper” position on Thursday, saying “We hope that India can work with us and contribute to solidarity, cooperation and common development.”
“There are challenges in bilateral relations, but China’s position and policy on India have not changed,” he said. “As two major countries and emerging markets, maintaining good relations serves the fundamental interests of both and we will remain committed to safeguarding peace and tranquility in the border area. On the historical issues, China believes that we should find just, reasonable and mutually acceptable solutions based on equal consultations and place them in the proper position in our bilateral relations. We look forward to reaching a consensus, properly managing differences, improving practical cooperation and getting our bilateral relations back on track. “
.
