Hua Chunying, spokesperson of China's Foreign Ministry on Monday said China and India have maintained close communication on resolving border issues through diplomatic and military channels.

Hua Chunying, spokesperson of China's Foreign Ministry on Monday said China and India have maintained close communication on resolving border issues through diplomatic and military channels. Chunying said border areas situation were discussed during the meeting between Chinese and Indian military officials on Jun 6. China's Foreign Ministry spokesperson stressed that China-India agreed to implement the important consensus reached by leaders and not to turn differences into disputes. Border areas situation were discussed during the meeting b/t Chinese & Indian military officials on Jun 6. China & India have maintained close communication on resolving border issues through diplomatic & military channels: China's Ambassador to India quoting Chinese FM Spox pic.twitter.com/skiBKYOzZT — ANI (@ANI) June 8, 2020 × ''India and China agreed to work together to maintain peace and tranquillity in border areas to create a favourable atmosphere for the stable development of bilateral relations,'' she noted. ''Overall the situation in the border areas is generally stable and under control. China and India have the capacity and willingness to properly solve relevant issues through negotiation and consultation,'' Sun Weidong, Chinese Ambassador to India said.

India, China agreed to work together to maintain peace in border: China's foreign ministry

India and China to hold Lieutenant General-level talks on June 6 to address ongoing dispute in eastern Ladakh along Line of Actual Control by China, news agency ANI reported quoting Indian Army sources.

14 Corps Commander Lt Gen Harinder Singh scheduled to hold talks with his Chinese counterpart, Army sources added.

India and China have been locked in a dispute over the heavy military build-up of over 5000 troops in Eastern Ladakh sector by People's Liberation Army.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
India &amp; China to hold Lieutenant General-level talks on June 6 to address ongoing dispute in eastern Ladakh along Line of Actual Control by China. 14 Corps Commander Lt Gen Harinder Singh scheduled to hold talks with his Chinese counterpart: Indian Army Sources
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1268057984480862209?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 3, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

In some areas, they are inside the Indian territory but their intent to carry out <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/use-diplomacy-to-resolve-border-issues-with-india-us-house-committee-tells-china-302508">deeper incursions</a> was checked by the Indian security forces by quick deployment.

The Chinese have also brought in heavy vehicles with artillery guns and infantry combat vehicles in their rear positions close to the Indian territory.

(With inputs from ANI)

India and China to hold Lieutenant General-level talks on June 6 to address ongoing dispute in eastern Ladakh along Line of Actual Control by China, news agency ANI reported quoting Indian Army sources.

India and China to hold Lieutenant General-level talks on June 6 to address ongoing dispute in eastern Ladakh along Line of Actual Control by China, news agency ANI reported quoting Indian Army sources. 14 Corps Commander Lt Gen Harinder Singh scheduled to hold talks with his Chinese counterpart, Army sources added. India and China have been locked in a dispute over the heavy military build-up of over 5000 troops in Eastern Ladakh sector by People's Liberation Army. India & China to hold Lieutenant General-level talks on June 6 to address ongoing dispute in eastern Ladakh along Line of Actual Control by China. 14 Corps Commander Lt Gen Harinder Singh scheduled to hold talks with his Chinese counterpart: Indian Army Sources — ANI (@ANI) June 3, 2020 × In some areas, they are inside the Indian territory but their intent to carry out deeper incursions was checked by the Indian security forces by quick deployment. The Chinese have also brought in heavy vehicles with artillery guns and infantry combat vehicles in their rear positions close to the Indian territory. (With inputs from ANI)

India, China to hold Lieutenant General-level talks on June 6 to address ongoing dispute in eastern Ladakh

BJP leader Basavaraj Ingin on Monday said that there is no border dispute between <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/karnataka-pejavara-mutt-seer-vishwesha-teertha-swami-passes-away-270802">Karnataka</a> and <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/maharashtra-uddhav-thackeray-to-expand-state-cabinet-on-monday-270866">Maharashtra</a>, and added that it is the handiwork of Maratha politicians. 
 
"There is no border dispute between Maharashtra and Karnataka. The Maratha politicians are trying to raise the issue just to gain public sympathy for their party. They have always been doing this. Once a personality goes down in degree, they create some issue.They just want to divert the attention of the people of Maharashtra," Ingin told media. 
 
"The matter was already decided by the Mahajan Commission report. It was earlier under legal scrutiny which has been completed by now," he added. 
 
Earlier in the day, amid tensions between Karnataka and neighbouring Maharashtra over the border issue with protests on both sides, Karnataka Chief Minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/karnataka-cm-announces-rs-10-lakh-compensation-for-two-killed-in-mangaluru-protests-269561">BS Yediyurappa</a> urged people of the state to maintain peace stating that 'not a single piece of land' would be given away. 
 
The protests in Karnataka and Maharashtra have led to the cancellation of bus services between the two states. 
 
On Sunday, Shiv Sena activists had launched a protest near the Kolhapur bus stand and burnt an effigy of Yediyurappa. This came after protesters in Belagavi burnt an effigy of Maharashtra Chief Minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/maharashtra-uddhav-thackeray-to-expand-state-cabinet-on-monday-270866">Uddhav Thackeray</a>. 
 
The agitation was in reaction to Eknath Shinde and Chhagan Bhujbal being appointed as coordinating ministers, to look into the issue of Maharashtra-Karnataka border dispute. 
 
On December 7, Thackeray had chaired a high-level meeting over the border dispute between two states. 
 
It was decided in the meeting that attempts will be made to get fast track hearing in Supreme Court on this issue.

BJP leader Basavaraj Ingin on Monday said that there is no border dispute between Karnataka and Maharashtra, and added that it is the handiwork of Maratha politicians.

BJP leader Basavaraj Ingin on Monday said that there is no border dispute between Karnataka and Maharashtra, and added that it is the handiwork of Maratha politicians. "There is no border dispute between Maharashtra and Karnataka. The Maratha politicians are trying to raise the issue just to gain public sympathy for their party. They have always been doing this. Once a personality goes down in degree, they create some issue.They just want to divert the attention of the people of Maharashtra," Ingin told media. "The matter was already decided by the Mahajan Commission report. It was earlier under legal scrutiny which has been completed by now," he added. Earlier in the day, amid tensions between Karnataka and neighbouring Maharashtra over the border issue with protests on both sides, Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa urged people of the state to maintain peace stating that 'not a single piece of land' would be given away. The protests in Karnataka and Maharashtra have led to the cancellation of bus services between the two states. On Sunday, Shiv Sena activists had launched a protest near the Kolhapur bus stand and burnt an effigy of Yediyurappa. This came after protesters in Belagavi burnt an effigy of Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray. The agitation was in reaction to Eknath Shinde and Chhagan Bhujbal being appointed as coordinating ministers, to look into the issue of Maharashtra-Karnataka border dispute. On December 7, Thackeray had chaired a high-level meeting over the border dispute between two states. It was decided in the meeting that attempts will be made to get fast track hearing in Supreme Court on this issue.

No border dispute between Karnataka and Maharashtra: BJP leader Basavaraj Ingin

By Nick Megoran

Border disputes have recently taken on renewed importance, threatening political crisis in the UK, US and EU. Yet 2018 saw positive steps towards resolving some of the world’s most difficult border conflicts, between Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan and Ethiopia and Eritrea. What lessons can be drawn from these examples?

International boundaries are not the same as international borders. Boundaries are invisible vertical planes extending upwards into airspace and downwards into the subsoil, marking the legal limit of states. Borders, on the other hand, are the practices associated with managing movement over boundaries, such as customs checkpoints, passport controls, and fences. Although literally at the edge of states, they can symbolically figure at the heart of a nation’s politics.

This was amply demonstrated in 2018. In the UK, the “Irish backstop” question plunged the country into an unprecedented political crisis. In the Mediterranean, meanwhile, over 2,200 migrants died attempting to evade the EU’s draconian border controls. At the same time, political gains have been made by parties of the right who regard the EU’s border-control policies as not draconian enough.

Across the Atlantic, meanwhile, US President Donald Trump’s tub-thumping over a “caravan” of Central American migrants supposedly threatening the US border made 2017’s hotly-contested midterm elections even uglier. Tussles with lawmakers over funding a border wall with Mexico have now led to a government shutdown.

All this is a long way away from the “borderless world” that 1990s globalisation theorists such as Kenichi Ohmae predicted would follow the end of the Cold War. Instead, we are seeing a “rebordering” of the world, the physical and symbolic reinforcement of what historian Timothy Synder has called “the wall around the West”.

But the Western perspective isn’t the only one. Indeed, 2018 saw a number of hopeful and instructive developments in Asia and Africa.

Central Asia

Created in the 1920s by the Soviet Union, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan became independent states in 1991. Their mutual boundary was an internal division within the Soviet Union, and was never intended to be an international boundary. Consequently, when the two states became independent, there were numerous disputes about its precise course. Villages, ethnic groups, families, farms, transport links and utility provision crisscrossed the borderlands.

Nonetheless, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the authoritarian president of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, imposed unilateral border controls. Visas were demanded, crossborder bridges demolished, roads blocked, and bus routes terminated. Villages that straddled the boundary were demolished and residents forcibly moved elsewhere. Barbed wire fences were erected, unmarked mine fields laid, and soldiers deployed to the border frequently used violence on petty traders and other borderlanders. A boundary commission was established, but its work stalled as relations between the two states deteriorated.

Populists in Kyrgyzstan reacted furiously, alleging that Uzbekistan was invading them. Inter-ethnic dynamics within Kyrgyzstan worsened, culminating in 2010 with pogroms against the country’s Uzbek minority.

Karimov died in 2016 and was succeeded by his protege, Shavkat Mirziyoyev. Mirziyoyev prioritised rebuilding regional relations, kick-starting delimitation negotiations and in late 2017 unilaterally reopened many border crossings.

In 2018, I visited the border and saw crowds of people crossing for trade and to visit family members, many of whom they had not seen for a decade and a half. Ethnic and interstate relations have improved as a result.

Ethiopia-Eritrea

An even more striking example from 2018 was the ending of the Ethiopian-Eritrean border conflict. As with Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, this boundary was a colonial legacy that artificially divided populations – and between 1998 and 2000, the two countries fought a bitter border war during which some 70,000 people died. The disputed territories were relatively small and of little economic value, but became heavily politicised by the militaristic governments of both countries.

The Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) was established under a 2000 peace agreement to end the war. It rendered its decision in 2002 and planned to oversee demarcation in 2003. Although previously agreeing that the ruling would be binding, Ethiopia took the highly unusual position of refusing to accept it. Despite pressure from the UN Security Council, troops continued to occupy disputed territory, refugees remained in camps, and crossborder contact was minimal. The threat of renewed war continued.

But in April 2018, the relatively youthful Abiy Ahmed took over as Ethiopian prime minister. He moved rapidly to improve relations with Eritrea, accepting the EEBC ruling and pulling troops back from disputed areas. A mere three months after taking office, he signed a peace accord with his Eritrean counterpart, formally ending the war. This was accompanied by joyful scenes of families reunited after two decades.

How to make good borders

Good borders are not about technical lines on a map, but political will. Changes in leadership in Uzbekistan and Ethiopia were crucial in restarting boundary delimitation and border management processes that had become deadlocked. As a result, families have been reunited, ethnic tensions reduced, and trade opportunities increased.

There are broader lessons here. The impasses created by the Irish border question in the Brexit negotiations and Trump’s border wall have created a political crisis, poisoned politics, and fanned xenophobia. More migrants die each year because of the EU’s militarised border controls than at any other border on Earth. These outcomes are not inevitable; they are political choices.

The EU, UK and US like to see themselves as moral standard-bearers in the international community. When it comes to border politics, however, they could do a lot worse than look to Uzbekistan and Ethiopia in 2019.

(Nick Megoran is Reader in Political Geography, Newcastle University)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/need-to-solve-a-border-dispute-look-to-ethiopia-and-uzbekistan-109149">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

 
&nbsp;

By Nick Megoran Border disputes have recently taken on renewed importance, threatening political crisis in the UK, US and EU. Yet 2018 saw positive steps towards resolving some of the world’s most difficult border conflicts, between Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan and Ethiopia and Eritrea.

By Nick Megoran Border disputes have recently taken on renewed importance, threatening political crisis in the UK, US and EU. Yet 2018 saw positive steps towards resolving some of the world’s most difficult border conflicts, between Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan and Ethiopia and Eritrea. What lessons can be drawn from these examples? International boundaries are not the same as international borders. Boundaries are invisible vertical planes extending upwards into airspace and downwards into the subsoil, marking the legal limit of states. Borders, on the other hand, are the practices associated with managing movement over boundaries, such as customs checkpoints, passport controls, and fences. Although literally at the edge of states, they can symbolically figure at the heart of a nation’s politics. This was amply demonstrated in 2018. In the UK, the “Irish backstop” question plunged the country into an unprecedented political crisis. In the Mediterranean, meanwhile, over 2,200 migrants died attempting to evade the EU’s draconian border controls. At the same time, political gains have been made by parties of the right who regard the EU’s border-control policies as not draconian enough. Across the Atlantic, meanwhile, US President Donald Trump’s tub-thumping over a “caravan” of Central American migrants supposedly threatening the US border made 2017’s hotly-contested midterm elections even uglier. Tussles with lawmakers over funding a border wall with Mexico have now led to a government shutdown. All this is a long way away from the “borderless world” that 1990s globalisation theorists such as Kenichi Ohmae predicted would follow the end of the Cold War. Instead, we are seeing a “rebordering” of the world, the physical and symbolic reinforcement of what historian Timothy Synder has called “the wall around the West”. But the Western perspective isn’t the only one. Indeed, 2018 saw a number of hopeful and instructive developments in Asia and Africa. Central Asia Created in the 1920s by the Soviet Union, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan became independent states in 1991. Their mutual boundary was an internal division within the Soviet Union, and was never intended to be an international boundary. Consequently, when the two states became independent, there were numerous disputes about its precise course. Villages, ethnic groups, families, farms, transport links and utility provision crisscrossed the borderlands. Nonetheless, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the authoritarian president of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, imposed unilateral border controls. Visas were demanded, crossborder bridges demolished, roads blocked, and bus routes terminated. Villages that straddled the boundary were demolished and residents forcibly moved elsewhere. Barbed wire fences were erected, unmarked mine fields laid, and soldiers deployed to the border frequently used violence on petty traders and other borderlanders. A boundary commission was established, but its work stalled as relations between the two states deteriorated. Populists in Kyrgyzstan reacted furiously, alleging that Uzbekistan was invading them. Inter-ethnic dynamics within Kyrgyzstan worsened, culminating in 2010 with pogroms against the country’s Uzbek minority. Karimov died in 2016 and was succeeded by his protege, Shavkat Mirziyoyev. Mirziyoyev prioritised rebuilding regional relations, kick-starting delimitation negotiations and in late 2017 unilaterally reopened many border crossings. In 2018, I visited the border and saw crowds of people crossing for trade and to visit family members, many of whom they had not seen for a decade and a half. Ethnic and interstate relations have improved as a result. Ethiopia-Eritrea An even more striking example from 2018 was the ending of the Ethiopian-Eritrean border conflict. As with Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, this boundary was a colonial legacy that artificially divided populations – and between 1998 and 2000, the two countries fought a bitter border war during which some 70,000 people died. The disputed territories were relatively small and of little economic value, but became heavily politicised by the militaristic governments of both countries. The Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) was established under a 2000 peace agreement to end the war. It rendered its decision in 2002 and planned to oversee demarcation in 2003. Although previously agreeing that the ruling would be binding, Ethiopia took the highly unusual position of refusing to accept it. Despite pressure from the UN Security Council, troops continued to occupy disputed territory, refugees remained in camps, and crossborder contact was minimal. The threat of renewed war continued. But in April 2018, the relatively youthful Abiy Ahmed took over as Ethiopian prime minister. He moved rapidly to improve relations with Eritrea, accepting the EEBC ruling and pulling troops back from disputed areas. A mere three months after taking office, he signed a peace accord with his Eritrean counterpart, formally ending the war. This was accompanied by joyful scenes of families reunited after two decades. How to make good borders Good borders are not about technical lines on a map, but political will. Changes in leadership in Uzbekistan and Ethiopia were crucial in restarting boundary delimitation and border management processes that had become deadlocked. As a result, families have been reunited, ethnic tensions reduced, and trade opportunities increased. There are broader lessons here. The impasses created by the Irish border question in the Brexit negotiations and Trump’s border wall have created a political crisis, poisoned politics, and fanned xenophobia. More migrants die each year because of the EU’s militarised border controls than at any other border on Earth. These outcomes are not inevitable; they are political choices. The EU, UK and US like to see themselves as moral standard-bearers in the international community. When it comes to border politics, however, they could do a lot worse than look to Uzbekistan and Ethiopia in 2019. (Nick Megoran is Reader in Political Geography, Newcastle University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Need to solve a border dispute? Look to Ethiopia and Uzbekistan

Venezuela and Colombia agreed on Thursday to reopen pedestrian border crossings between their countries, a year after Venezuela closed the frontier in a dispute over security and smuggling. 
 
Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos said he and his Venezuelan counterpart agreed to open five pedestrian crossings for 15 hours a day from Saturday. 
 
&quot;What we are going to do is open the border gradually,&quot; Santos told reporters after talks with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. 
 
&quot;It will be a temporary opening schedule while we learn and adapt to the decisions so that each step we take will be accurate and positive.&quot; 
 
Maduro said he hoped the reopening would lead to a &quot;new frontier of peace&quot; and &quot;a new beginning for economic and trade relations.&quot; 
 
Santos said they would continue discussions about opening up the border to cargo vehicles. 
 
He added that they were discussing the possibility of setting up Venezuelan gas stations on the Colombian side where Venezuela could sell its petrol. 
 
At the talks in the eastern Venezuelan town of Puerto Ordaz, the leaders said they reviewed reports by their advisers on cross-border smuggling and security. 
 
Security was the top issue at the border, Santos said. The two countries this week set up a joint initiative to fight organized crime. 
 
&quot;This is very important because it is going to make it possible for the rest of the border to operate peacefully,&quot; he said.Santos said the two countries also agreed to exchange customs information to fight petrol smuggling -- one reason Maduro cited for closing the border. 
 
Maduro sealed off his country&#39;s 2,200-kilometre (1,400-mile) western border on August 19 last year after an attack on a Venezuelan army patrol which wounded three people. 
 
He said at the time that right-wing paramilitaries from Colombia were to blame. 
 
The leftist leader has briefly reopened the border in recent weeks to allow Venezuelans to stock up on food, medicine and other basic supplies. 
 
Tens of thousands of Venezuelans streamed into the Colombian city of Cucuta last month, taking advantage of the temporary reopening. 
Venezuela is facing severe shortages in an economic crisis fueled by the global crash in the price of oil, its main export. 
 
Maduro&#39;s opponents also accuse him of mishandling the state-led economy. They are trying to call a referendum on removing him from office. 
 
The United Nations said Venezuela deported hundreds of Colombians last year after the border was closed and that thousands more fled back to Colombia for fear of being expelled. 
 
The UN Interamerican Commission on Human Rights said the situation caused a humanitarian crisis and that deported Colombians` rights were violated.&nbsp;Caracas denied the allegation. 
 
(AFP)

Maduro had also briefly reopened the border in recent weeks to allow crisis-hit Venezuelans to stock up on food and medicines

Venezuela and Colombia agreed on Thursday to reopen pedestrian border crossings between their countries, a year after Venezuela closed the frontier in a dispute over security and smuggling. Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos said he and his Venezuelan counterpart agreed to open five pedestrian crossings for 15 hours a day from Saturday. "What we are going to do is open the border gradually," Santos told reporters after talks with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. "It will be a temporary opening schedule while we learn and adapt to the decisions so that each step we take will be accurate and positive." Maduro said he hoped the reopening would lead to a "new frontier of peace" and "a new beginning for economic and trade relations." Santos said they would continue discussions about opening up the border to cargo vehicles. He added that they were discussing the possibility of setting up Venezuelan gas stations on the Colombian side where Venezuela could sell its petrol. At the talks in the eastern Venezuelan town of Puerto Ordaz, the leaders said they reviewed reports by their advisers on cross-border smuggling and security. Security was the top issue at the border, Santos said. The two countries this week set up a joint initiative to fight organized crime. "This is very important because it is going to make it possible for the rest of the border to operate peacefully," he said.Santos said the two countries also agreed to exchange customs information to fight petrol smuggling -- one reason Maduro cited for closing the border. Maduro sealed off his country's 2,200-kilometre (1,400-mile) western border on August 19 last year after an attack on a Venezuelan army patrol which wounded three people. He said at the time that right-wing paramilitaries from Colombia were to blame. The leftist leader has briefly reopened the border in recent weeks to allow Venezuelans to stock up on food, medicine and other basic supplies. Tens of thousands of Venezuelans streamed into the Colombian city of Cucuta last month, taking advantage of the temporary reopening. Venezuela is facing severe shortages in an economic crisis fueled by the global crash in the price of oil, its main export. Maduro's opponents also accuse him of mishandling the state-led economy. They are trying to call a referendum on removing him from office. The United Nations said Venezuela deported hundreds of Colombians last year after the border was closed and that thousands more fled back to Colombia for fear of being expelled. The UN Interamerican Commission on Human Rights said the situation caused a humanitarian crisis and that deported Colombians` rights were violated. Caracas denied the allegation. (AFP)

Colombia, Venezuela to reopen border

border-dispute

Border Dispute, News on Border Dispute, stories on Border Dispute, articles on Border Dispute, Border Dispute stories at Wion, Border Dispute news, Border Dispute latest news