India and China have their first deadly clashes in 45 years

0
425

[Reading level: C2 – Mastery]

The border affray is a sign of worrying military escalation between Asia’s giants

 

THE TWO armies each had guns, artillery and tanks to the rear. But they wielded only sticks and stones at the front, as night fell on June 15th. That was deadly enough. When the brawl ended, and the final rocks had been thrown, at least 20 Indian troops lay dead in the picturesque Galwan valley, high in the mountains of Ladakh. Chinese casualties are unknown. They were the first combat fatalities on the mountainous border between India and China in 45 years, drawing to a close an era in which Asia’s two largest powers had managed their differences without bloodshed.

 

The Indian and Chinese armies had been locked in a stand-off at three sites in Ladakh, an Indian territory at the northernmost tip of the country, for over a month. In April the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) broke off from exercises and occupied a series of remote border posts along the disputed frontier, known as the Line of Actual Control (LAC). Both sides quickly moved troops and heavy weapons towards the LAC. As troops squared off, punch-ups erupted twice in May, at Pangong lake, in Ladakh, and at Naku La in Sikkim, 1,200km to the east, resulting in serious injuries on both sides. In total, the PLA grabbed around 40 to 60 square kilometres of territory that India considers to be its own, estimates Lieutenant-General H.S. Panag, a former head of the Indian army’s northern command.

 

Even then, India’s government played down the severity of the crisis, eager to avoid giving the impression that it had been caught napping on the border – and mindful that a nationalist backlash would make it harder to defuse the situation. As diplomats and generals worked the phones and met at the border, things seemed to be calming. On June 9th India’s government said China had pulled back troops, tents and vehicles at the Galwan valley and another site (though not the lake), and that India had reciprocated. On June 13th General M.M. Naravane, India’s army chief, cheerfully declared that talks had been “very fruitful”.

 

The deadly clash two days later suggests they were clearly not fruitful enough. India’s army initially said that an officer and two soldiers had been killed “during the de-escalation process”, though army sources later privately acknowledged a far higher toll. The army added that “both sides suffered casualties”. Indian press reports suggest that the troops had been meeting to discuss the details of a withdrawal when a fight broke out, causing Indian soldiers to fall down a slope. “The Chinese seem to have brought iron rods, sticks studded with metal tips and stones,” says Nitin Gokhale, an Indian defence analyst. “The Indians also had some of their equipment.” Even 24 hours after the clash, an Indian major and a captain were reported to be in Chinese custody.

 

China’s government was unrepentant. It said that India had gone back on earlier agreements and “twice crossed the border line for illegal activities and provoked and attacked Chinese personnel”. Hu Xijin, editor of the Global Times, a state-run tabloid, acknowledged the Chinese casualties in a tweet. If PLA soldiers were killed, these would be China’s first fatalities in combat since skirmishes with Vietnam in the 1980s.

 

The immediate cause of the current crisis seems to have been India’s build-up of infrastructure in eastern Ladakh, including a key north-south road, making it easier to move troops and redressing China’s advantage in logistics. “What we’re seeing right now is the friction of both sides adjusting to a more capable and more resolved Indian approach to the LAC,” says Rohan Mukherjee of Yale-NUS College.

 

Though India and China have been rivals for a half-century—the PLA thumped India’s army in a brief border war in 1962—their rivalry has grown more intense over the past decade. The border has turned stormier, with Chinese incursions in Ladakh occurring in 2013 and 2014, and a 73-day stand-off on the edge of Bhutan in 2017. Last year China was irked by India’s decision to revoke the constitutional autonomy of Jammu & Kashmir and carve out Ladakh into a separate territory, ruled directly from Delhi. Indian officials also ramped up rhetoric on retaking the entirety of the old princely state—including a sliver handed to China by Pakistan in 1963. India is anxious over China’s growing economic and political clout on India’s periphery—in Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka—and over the influx of Chinese warships into the Indian Ocean.

 

In response, successive Indian governments have tilted closer to America, with which India signed a $3.5bn arms deal in February, and China’s rivals in Asia, such as Vietnam. A quartet of China-sceptic countries known as the “Quad”, comprising America, Australia, India and Japan, now meet regularly. Though India is at pains to stress that the Quad is not an alliance, Australia may soon join naval exercises involving the other three countries, lending a naval dimension to the group.

 

The violent turn in the border dispute is likely to accelerate these trends. “We are at a worrisome and extremely serious turning-point in our relations with China,” says Nirupama Rao, a former head of India’s diplomatic service and ambassador to China. She notes a “clear asymmetry of power” between the two countries. India is likely to deepen its relationship with America and increase its defense budget, says Mr Mukherjee. As both sides shift resources to the border, “there will be a period of adjustment in which things may be especially heated,” he says.

 

Yet India now faces military and diplomatic turbulence with three of its neighbours. On June 12th an Indian citizen was killed by Nepalese border guards, amid a separate border row between India and Nepal. Relations with Pakistan are also fraught after an Indian soldier was killed by Pakistani firing in Kashmir on June 14th and, the next day, two Indian officials in Pakistan were allegedly abducted for more than ten hours and tortured by “Pakistani agencies”.

 

Source: https://www.economist.com/asia/2020/06/16/india-and-china-have-their-first-deadly-clashes-in-45-years?utm_campaign=the-economist-today&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_source=salesforce-marketing-cloud&utm_term=2020-06-16&utm_content=article-link-1

WORD BANK:

affray /əˈfreɪ/ (n): cuộc ẩu đả

artillery /ɑːˈtɪl.ər.i/ (n): pháo

the rear /rɪər/ [C1] (n): phía sau, hậu phương

wield /wiːld/ [C2] (v): dùng, sử dụng (vũ khí, quyền lực)

brawl /brɔːl/ (n): cuộc ẩu đả

troop /truːp/ [C2] (n): binh lính

picturesque /ˌpɪk.tʃərˈesk/ [B2] (adj): đẹp như tranh vẽ

casualty /ˈkæʒ.ju.əl.ti/ [C2] (n): thương vong

fatality /fəˈtæl.ə.ti/ (n): tử vong

bloodshed /ˈblʌd.ʃed/ (n): đổ máu

stand-off /ˈstænd.ɒf/ (n): trạng thái cảnh giác, tình trạng căng thẳng

northernmost /ˈnɔː.ðən.məʊst/ (adj): cực bắc

exercise /ˈek.sə.saɪz/ (n): cuộc tập trận

disputed /dɪˈspjuː.tɪd/ (adj): bị tranh chấp

square off /skweər/ (v): đối đầu, chuẩn bị đánh nhau

punch-up /ˈpʌntʃ.ʌp/ (n): vụ ẩu đả

erupt /ɪˈrʌpt/ (v): nổ ra

grab /ɡræb/ (v): chiếm được

play sth down (v): làm giảm bớt mức tầm nghiêm trọng / quan trọng của vấn đề

severity /sɪˈver.ə.ti/ [C2] (n): tính nghiêm trọng

mindful /ˈmaɪnd.fəl/ (adj): lưu tâm

backlash /ˈbæk.læʃ/ (n): phản ứng dữ dội

defuse /ˌdiːˈfjuːz/ (v): xoa dịu, hạ nhiệt (căng thẳng)

reciprocate /rɪˈsɪp.rə.keɪt/ (v): đáp lại, có hành động tương tự

fruitful /ˈfruːt.fəl/ [C1] (adj): mang lại kết quả, hiệu quả

de-escalation /diːˌes.kəˈleɪ.ʃən/ (n): sự giảm căng thẳng

toll /təʊl/ [C1] (n): tổn thất

withdrawal /wɪðˈdrɔː.əl/ [C2] (n): việc rút quân

rod /rɒd/ (n): thanh sắt / gỗ

stud with sth /stʌd/ (v): gắn cái gì

in custody /ˈkʌs.tə.di/ [C2] (adj/adv): bị giam giữ

unrepentant /ˌʌn.rɪˈpen.tənt/ (adj): ngoan cố

go back on (v): đi ngược lại (thỏa thuận)

provoke /prəˈvəʊk/ [C2] (v): kích động

tabloid /ˈtæb.lɔɪd/ [B2] (n): tờ báo lá cải

skirmish /ˈskɜː.mɪʃ/ (n): cuộc giao tranh

redress (the balance) /rɪˈdres/ (v): làm tái cân bằng

logistics /ləˈdʒɪs.tɪks/ (n): hậu cần

friction /ˈfrɪk.ʃən/ (n): va chạm, xung đột

resolved /rɪˈzɒlvd/ (adj): quyết tâm

thump /θʌmp/ (v): đánh bại

incursion /ɪnˈkɜː.ʒən/ (n): sự xâm nhập

irk /ɜːk/ (v): khiến ai đó tức giận

revoke /rɪˈvəʊk/ (v): tước, thu hồi

carve out /kɑrv/ (v): cắt ra

ramp up /ræmp/ (v): tăng cường

rhetoric /ˈret.ər.ɪk/ (n): lời khoa trương

princely /ˈprɪns.li/ (adj): rộng lớn

sliver /ˈslɪv.ər/ (n): dải đất, dải

clout /klaʊt/ (n): ảnh hưởng (quyền lực)

periphery /pəˈrɪf.ər.i/ (n): vùng ngoại vi

the influx of sth /ˈɪn.flʌks/ [C2] (n): dòng chảy của cái gì

successive /səkˈses.ɪv/ [C2] (adj): liên tiếp

tilt /tɪlt/ (v): tiến gần

quartet /kwɔːˈtet/ (n): bộ tứ

at pains to do sth (idiom): cố gắng làm gì

dimension /ˌdaɪˈmen.ʃən/ /ˌdɪˈmen.ʃən/ [B2] (n): quy mô

asymmetry /eɪˈsɪm.ə.tri/ (n): sự bất đối xứng

turbulence /ˈtɜː.bjə.ləns/ (n): bất ổn

row /rəʊ/ (n): xung đột

fraught /frɔːt/ (adj): căng thẳng, đáng ngại

allegedly /əˈledʒ.ɪd.li/ [C2] (adv): được cho là

abduct /æbˈdʌkt/ (v): bắt cóc

torture /ˈtɔː.tʃər/ [C2] (v): tra tấn


NG HỘ READ TO LEAD!

Chào bạn! Có thể bạn chưa biết, Read to Lead là một trang giáo dục phi lợi nhuận với mục đích góp phần phát triển cộng đồng người học tiếng Anh tại Việt Nam. Chúng tôi không yêu cầu người đọc phải trả bất kỳ chi phí nào để sử dụng các sản phẩm của mình để mọi người đều có cơ hội học tập tốt hơn. Tuy nhiên, nếu bạn có thể, chúng tôi mong nhận được sự hỗ trợ tài chính từ bạn để duy trì hoạt động của trang và phát triển các sản phẩm mới.

Bạn có thể ủng hộ chúng tôi qua 1 trong 2 cách dưới đây.
– Cách 1: Chuyển tiền qua tài khoản Momo.
Số điện thoại 0947.886.865 (Chủ tài khoản: Nguyễn Tiến Trung)
Nội dung chuyển tiền: Ủng hộ Read to Lead
hoặc
– Cách 2: Chuyển tiền qua tài khoản ngân hàng.
Ngân hàng VIB chi nhánh Hải Phòng
Số tài khoản: 012704060048394 (Chủ tài khoản: Nguyễn Tiến Trung)
Nội dung chuyển tiền: Ủng hộ Read to Lead

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here