China’s negotiation with Bhutan on the border dispute is beneficial for the latter’s sovereignty, while India’s involvement is an act of surrendering sovereignty to another nation, said a Bhutanese expert.
Wangcha Sangey, a legal consultant for the Bhutanese news portal bhutannewsnetwork.com, posted an article denouncing India’s involvement in the Sino-Bhutanese border dispute, adding that the Bhutanese army at Doklam would not rely on their Indian counterparts stationed at the Sikkim section of the boundary to solve the problem.
Sangey’s remarks come on the heel of the Indian defense minister’s accusation that Chinese troops should not “intrude into Bhutanese territory,” adding that the issue is related to India’s security.
Refuting such groundless criticism, Geng Shuang, China’s Foreign Ministry’s spokesperson reiterated that Doklam has always been part of China and is under effective jurisdiction without any dispute.
“In fact, it is the Indian side who takes ‘protecting Bhutan’ as an excuse to justify its boundary-crossing and entry into China and makes an issue of the Doklam area so as to hold back the China-Bhutan boundary negotiation. We once again urge the Indian side to immediately pull all of the troops that have crossed the boundary back to its own side before the situation gets worse with more serious consequences,” Geng said.
Sharing the same opinion, Sangey questioned India’s intention in hyping up the boundary dispute, adding that India also settled with Bhutan, but the latter was possibly in no position to negotiate and so had to accept India’s claims.
“Bhutan is more vulnerable to a takeover by India than by China. [The country] has no access to the outside world except through India. And moreover, Bhutanese economy and commerce are totally dependent on India. Due to such geopolitical constrictions, Bhutan probably had to accept no matter where India decided to lay the Indo-Bhutan international boundary pillars. Thus the [determination of boundary between India and Bhutan] is quiet and quick when one makes decision for two sides,” Sangey wrote