All posts by webadmin

Bank manager booked for duping retd Col of Rs 15 lakh

Victim knew accused for past eight years and even lent Rs 5 lakh to him

PANCHKULA : The local police on Friday booked four people, including bank manager of ICICI Bank, Manimajra branch, Arun Saluja, for cheating a retired Colonel of Rs 15 lakh.

Col Dilbag Singh Pannu (retd), 76, a resident of Sector 4 of Mansa Devi Complex (MDC), Panchkula, had a savings account in the Manimajra branch of ICICI bank.

The victim had known Saluja for eight years as the latter used to help him for his bank-related work. As the familiarity increased over the years, Saluja on various instances gave Pannu the comfort of just signing his cheques while he proceeded to fill the other details.

In the past, Saluja had also asked Pannu not to come to the bank as he will get Pannu‘s cheques collected from home and complete the transaction as needed. Such service, Saluja had claimed, was being provided by the bank to its deserving customers. On April 15, Pannu received around Rs 10 lakh on the maturity of his life insurance policy. Saluja advised him to invest it in the bank’s short-term investment scheme.

Saluja, accompanied by his wife Preeti Saluja, collected the cheques worth Rs 10 lakh from Pannu’s residence on April 19. On the same day, Pannu also lent Rs 5 lakh to Saluja as a loan. In return, Saluja gave Pannu two predated cheques of Rs 2.5 lakh each, signed on the name his mother and wife. When Pannu checked his account on July 15, he did not find the amount of Rs 10 lakh. On July 17, when Pannu visited the bank branch, he was told that Saluja was on leave since July 14.

Pannu later found out that two cheques which Saluja collected from him were allegedly transferred to the account of a Chandigarh-based man Amit Sharma, who was ‘hand-in-glove’ with Saluja. The two predated cheques of Rs 5 lakh had also allegedly bounced. Pannu also visited Saluja’s residence where his wife Preeti told him that Saluja has been missing.

Police have booked Saluja’s wife Preeti, his mother Sudesh and Amit Sharma on the charges of cheating at Mansa Devi police station in Panchkula.


China is building a great wall of silence in the US

As Aadhaar becomes the norm in India, and gets skewered for the involuntary nature of its imposition, our northern neighbours, as is their wont, want to do a number that will make this appear benign. That’s the proposed ‘social credit’, which the non-profit Freedom House, in its latest report, describes as a regime that “would connect each citizen’s financial, social, political, and legal data to produce a single numerical rating of his or her behaviour and trustworthiness.” Fittingly, it’s coordinated by the Orwellian-sounding Central Leading Group for Comprehensively Deepening Reforms. This reality contrasts with the alternate vision seen by some in recent months of China occupying a central place in the world as Donald Trump’s America withdraws into itself.
That the Chinese machinery has managed to further such propaganda is no surprise. As China unveiled a monumental $200 million new embassy building in Washington in 2010, it was a symbolic and in-yourface marker of its outsize ambitions. It employs lobbyists across the K Street corridor of the Beltway, including some dedicated to image-making for its ambassador. American companies with manufacturing bases in China are force multipliers for Beijing, while inroads into American academia and media add to its influence. China has ventured capital into Silicon Valley. Its investments into Hollywood, for instance, have made support for Tibet within the film community nearly non-existent.
Those are credible reasons why voices once raised over China’s actions, in Tibet or Xinjiang, have been muted to whispers, of the sort that country’s netizens have to resort to in questioning the regime, since even Winnie the Pooh can be blacklisted by the Chinese checkers for bearing an alleged resemblance to President Xi Jinping. Money can talk but, even better, it can buy silence.
As a result, the death by negligence of Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo attracts bromides from the White House. As China watcher Jocelyn Ford poignantly noted in an article for Asia Society, this summer as Liu was essentially condemned to death, the World Economic Forum had its annual summer meeting in China. Despite its tagline ‘committed to improving the state of the world’, she wrote, it “self-censors on issues that China may take as an affront.” Beijing uses its support for a globalism, for example the Paris climate agreement, as it segues into its practical and tactical agenda.
Yet another Nobelist, the Dalai Lama, meanwhile, once had to exit the Obama White House via the back, walking out amidst ranks of garbage bags. While the human rights industrial complex hums along nicely in the democratic world, it confronts a barrier in the Great Wall of China.

The world, led by the United States, has vacated the moral space in challenging China. And that has allowed Beijing to, literally, push the boundaries of its megalomania. India’s vaunted soft power projection may have its votaries, but the Chinese velvet glove has punched its way into the heavyweight category.


PLAYING CHINESE CHECKERS

A new book argues that the way to handle Sino­Indian friction is to use military power more strategically

Even when our troops are not facing off somewhere in the Himalayas, no country weighs more on India’s strategic conscious than China. India has little institutional knowledge of China. And Beijing’s decision-making is a black box. The result in India is a wide array of opinions about how best to handle the Middle Kingdom. The two authors of Dragon on our Doorstep argue the way to handle Sino-Indian friction is to use military power more strategically, using a toughened border stance to send messages to China and make peace with Islamabad. While this has pie-in-the-sky elements, the bit about Pakistan would not have been out of place in Manmohan Singh’s foreign policy.

The China policy outlined here starts with the Sino-Indian border. They argue that since Rajiv Gandhi’s time, successive Indian governments have taken away border management from the generals and handed it to the diplomats. “Consequently, all border agreements thereafter demonstrated an ignorance of military understanding and its correlation with foreign policy.” When New Delhi then opted to counter Beijing on the global stage, it sought to keep the border out of the headlines and created a fiction about its stability. In a “policy of appeasement,” they argue, Indian officials negotiated border management agreements that tied the hands of the military in an attempt to preserve an uneasy truce along the de facto border. “India’s political and military leaders, in cahoots with its diplomats, have sold falsehoods to their own people on the border issue,” the authors charge. For example, India’s claim its troops also intrude into Chinese territory is patently false and all such intrusions are ‘strictly one-sided.”

The fallout: a declining Indian military capacity. This is a specific meaning for the authors and they return to it repeatedly. According to this, New Delhi’s has come to see defence in terms of amassing weapons and a more holistic sense of military power has been allowed to wither. The army’s diversion to counter-insurgency operations, the civilian authorities unwillingness to let the military to be involved in strategic policy-making and so on have all fed into this process of atrophy. Bizarrely, the authors see even the 2003 Line of Control ceasefire as having contributed to this decline. The ceasefire, they argue, was “a masterstroke” by Pakistan because “the artillery fire was a morale booster for troops on the Line of Control.”

They also cite the Pakistani and Chinese military approvingly despite strong evidence that the former has officer-soldier problems on the battlefield while the latter is almost a business conglomerate. Linked to this, and argued on firmer grounds, is a critique of India’s state-owned defence industries with their addiction to imports and inability to make guns or even boots.

With so much malaise afflicting India’s foreign and defence policy, it is no surprise Beijing does not take New Delhi too seriously.

The proposed solutions to India’s China dilemma are daring if suspect at a time when China’s Belt-Road Initiative could decisively change the geopolitics of the continent and its successes in the South China Sea have emboldened it to become more aggressive.

They argue India has three strategic options regarding China. One is to lean towards the United States to counter China’s greater strength, but there is scepticism about Washington’s dependability. The other is to dramatically reform India’s military and boost overall capacity –easier said than done. Finally, India can simply act as if has a greater global profile and bluff its way with China as long as it can. None of these are well-defined in the book and some of the assumptions behind them are questionable. They see Russian relations as a model for India, ignoring the degree Moscow is now at Beijing’s beck and call. They see the Indo-US nuclear deal as a failure, falling into the common misconception it was actually about nuclear technology.

It is difficult to swallow the argument that “India needs to understand that the road to managing an assertive China runs through Pakistan.” Settle Kashmir and it will “open the floodgates of opportunities.” There is some logic to this. However, the authors whitewash the difficulties involved and fail to consider the likelihood that the Pakistani military will remain hostile to India despite a settlement.

Where the book hugs the Indian border or talks about the nitty-gritty of its military, it is convincing and stimulating. As it moves into the more rarefied air of diplomacy or international relations, the more fanciful it sounds. There are many gaps. It is never clear what actually motivates China’s leadership to do what it does. Pakistan’s internal drivers are also hazy. However, despite a tendency for the text to stray into unrelated areas, the book remains largely true to its larger argument and is brave enough to argue, for example, that the Armed Forces Special Powers Act is detrimental to the military.


Doklam issue: India must be ready to give China a real bloody nose

Beijing is currently waging full­throttle psychological warfare over Doklam to tame India

The current troop standoff with China at Doklam offers India important lessons that go far beyond the Chinese intrusion into this Bhutanese plateau. Unless India grasps the long-term threat posed by an increasingly muscular China and responds with an appropriate counterstrategy, it is sure to confront much bigger problems than Doklam. Unfortunately, institutional memory in India tends to be short, with a mindset of immediacy blurring the bigger picture.

APChina’s strategy is to subdue India by attacking its weak points, striking where it is unprepared, and hampering its rise to the extent possible.For example, Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti’s recent statement that China is “meddling” in her state was seen as signifying a new trend. In truth, China — occupying a fifth of the original princely state of J&K and now enlarging its strategic footprint in Pakistanoccupied J&K — has long been playing the Kashmir card against India. In 2010 it honed that card by aggressively adopting a stapledvisa policy for J&K residents.

To mount pressure, Beijing has tacitly questioned India’s sovereignty over the 45% of J&K under Indian control and officially shortened the length of the Himalayan border it shares with India by purging the 1,597-kilometre line separating Indian J&K from Chinese-held J&K.

China’s Kashmir interference will only increase as a result of its so-called economic corridor through Pakistan-held J&K, where Chinese military presence is growing, including near Pakistan’s ceasefire line with India. India now faces Chinese troops on both flanks of its portion of J&K.

China, which fomented the Naga and Mizo insurgencies, taught its “all weather” client Pakistan how to wage proxy war against India. China still fans flames in India’s northeast. For example, Paresh Barua, the long-time fugitive commanderin-chief of ULFA, has been traced to Ruili, in China’s Yunnan province.

Some other Indian insurgent leaders have been ensconced in Myanmar’s Yunnan-bordering region controlled by the China-backed Kachin Independence Army. This newspaper reported in 2015 that Chinese intelligence played “an active role” in assisting nine northeast Indian insurgent groups to form a united front.

The illicit flow of Chinese arms to India, including to Maoists, was confirmed by Home Secretary G.K. Pillai in 2010. Meanwhile, the deepening China-Pakistan nexus presents India with a two-front theatre in the event of a war with either country.

China’s strategy is to subdue India by attacking its weak points, striking where it is unprepared, and hampering its rise to the extent possible. As part of this strategy, it is waging a multipronged unconventional war without firing a single shot. It is closing in on India from multiple flanks, extending from Nepal to the Indian Ocean.

Sixty-six years after gobbling up buffer Tibet and mounting a Himalayan threat, China — with the world’s fastest-growing submarine fleet — is opening a threat from the seas against India.

Its recently opened naval base in Djibouti, at the Indian Ocean’s northwestern edge, constitutes just a first step in its game plan to dominate the region.

For India, whose energy and strategic infrastructure is concentrated along a vulnerable, 7,600-kilometre coastline, this represents a tectonic shift in its threat calculus.

Add to the picture China’s economic warfare to undermine India’s strength in various ways, including stifling its manufacturing capability through largescale dumping of goods. Artificially low prices of Chinese products also translate into India losing billions of dollars yearly in customs duties and tax revenue.

Portentously, China, including Hong Kong, made up 22% of India’s imports in 2015, with the US just at 5% and Japan at 2%.

Yet India has yet to fully shed its policy blinkers. As India repeats the same old platitudes about conciliation and cooperation, China is making clear that there cannot be “two Suns in the sky” — or, as a Chinese idiom goes, “one mountain cannot accommodate two tigers”. With its rekindled, atavistic nationalism, China plainly wants to be Asia’s sole tiger.

Beijing is currently waging full-throttle psychological warfare over Doklam to tame India. Deception and mendacity are its tools. If India gives in, it will endure strategic subordination and ignominy forever.

Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj’s excellent rebuttal in Parliament of Chinese disinformation begs the question: Why has India been so slow in countering Beijing’s propaganda war?

New Delhi must play psychological hardball: Instead of appearing zealous for talks, it should insist that China first withdraw both its troops and preconditions, while leaving Beijing in no doubt that India will hold its ground, come what may. If India is to stop China’s creeping, covert encroachments and secure Himalayan peace, it must be ready to give Beijing a real bloody nose if it escalates the standoff to a conflict. Humiliating China even in a localised military engagement, in 1967 style, is vital to help destabilise its expansionist regime.


Army doesn’t have any missing items: Centre

PATIALA: The Indian Army does not possess any manuscripts and other historical documents reportedly missing from the Golden Temple after Operation Bluestar in 1984, the defence ministry has said. It claims the manuscripts and other items were handed over to the state government and other agencies, but it mentions no dates.

In response to a plea by Patiala MP Dharamvira Gandhi on July 7, the ministry said about the manuscripts, purportedly found during the operation to flush out militants from the Sikh shrine in Amritsar, that these “were handed over to Mohan Singh, curator, museum, Punjab government”.

It added, “Other items were handed over to functionaries of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC); government treasurer, Amritsar; and the CBI.”

The SGPC says 15,000 rare books, 16,000 artefacts related to Sikh religion and history, edicts issued by the 10 gurus, and handwritten ‘birs’ (copies) of Guru Granth Sahib were among the items missing. Gandhi said he, for now, only wanted the ministry to bring the issue of missing documents on record, which he has achieved.

In the latest in his series of efforts, he had written to home minister Rajnath Singh for return of the material, but his plea was referred to the defence ministry on May 31.

“I will meet SGPC officials now to approach the Centre again to trace the documents, which are not only a treasure for the Sikh community but also for Hindus and Punjab as a whole,” said the MP. SGPC president Kirpal Singh Badungar said the central ministries have been “lying repeatedly over such sensitive issues”. “Where are the rare manuscripts and documents then, if the army claims to have not taken them away?” he asked.

The state government, besides the SGPC, have approached the Centre on multiple occasions over the years for “return” of the items held at the Sikh Reference Library in the Golden Temple complex till June 7, 1984, when the operation ended.

But the defence ministry had said all material seized was handed over to intelligence agencies.

The matter had come to light when a former sub-inspector associated with the CBI in 1984 had claimed that the material was shifted to an undisclosed location by the army and CBI officials.


Ladakh gets bridge at Chumathang

Ladakh gets bridge at Chumathang
The new bridge inaugurated at Chumathang on the Leh-Loma road. Tribune Photo

Tribune News Service

Jammu, July 21

The Border Roads Organisation (BRO) in eastern Ladakh has created yet another landmark by constructing the Chumathang bridge in the region.The bridge will connect Leh with important towns like Hanle and Loma in addition to the upcoming tourist destination of the Tso Morari lake.The 111 Road Construction Company (RCC ) of the 16 Border Road Task Force (BRTF) under Project Himank led by Brigadier DM Purvimath, Chief Engineer, has launched this 50-metre class 70 ton steel structure across the Chumatang nullah, which will facilitate smooth movement of various military and civilian vehicles on this important axis.The BRO is executing the work for upgrade of the Leh-Loma axis from the existing single lane to double lane, including replacement of existing temporary bridges.The Chumathang bridge was inaugurated by Lt Gen SK Shrivastava, Director General Border Roads, on Thursday during a solemn inauguration ceremony. He complimented the team of the 111 RCC for having completed the bridge despite the extreme working conditions in the region.Speaking on the occasion, he asked all ranks of Project Himank to make efforts to expedite the double-laning work of the Leh–Loma road as well as efficient maintenance and upgrade of other roads in the eastern Ladakh region.


Centre contradicts itself on right to privacy in SC Says WhatsApp personal data part of fundamental right

Satya Prakash

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, July 21

Having taken a stand before a nine-Judge Constitution Bench that right to privacy is not a fundamental right, the Centre today contradicted itself by telling another Constitution Bench hearing the WhatsApp privacy matter that personal data was an extension of one’s personality and hence a part of fundamental right to life.“Data of a user is connected to his personality and it is an integral part of Article 21 (Fundamental Right to Life and Liberty),” Additional Solicitor General PS Narasimha told a five-Judge Bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra, which is examining issues arising out of the 2016 privacy policy of WhatsApp.“If any contractual obligation impinges upon that, it will have ramifications. We will come out with regulations (on data protection),” Narasimha said.On the face of it, the Centre’s stand in the WhatsApp case appears to be contrary to its categorical statement before the nine-Judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India JS Khehar that right to privacy was not a fundamental right.The Bench posted the matter for further hearing on September 6 after senior counsel Kapil Sibal, representing WhatsApp, pointed out that the verdict of the nine-Judge Bench on right to privacy would have a bearing on the matter and it should be heard only after the judgment was pronounced by the larger Bench.Petitioners Karmanya Singh Sareen and Shreya Sethi had alleged WhatsApp’s decision to share all its subscribers’ data with Facebook impinged on privacy of 160 million Indian users.The Delhi High Court had last year ruled that WhatsApp should delete all data in its possession till September 25, 2016, but said the company was free to share the data with Facebook post September 25, 2016, thus enabling subscribers to voluntarily withdraw from the service if they were not keen on sharing their data with Facebook.The high court had asked the Centre and TRAI to examine the feasibility of bringing the messaging services under a regulatory regime in India. The petitioners challenged the HC verdict in the top court where the issue got referred to a Constitution Bench.

WhatsApp, FB can’t share ‘intimate’ data: Govt to SC

PETITION IN COURT Centre’s stand contradicts its position in privacy and Aadhaar cases

From page 1 NEWDELHI: Social media platforms such as WhatsApp and Facebook cannot share subscriber data because these are too intimate, the government said in the Supreme Court on Friday.

The government declared its stand before a bench of five judges, which is hearing a petition challenging WhatsApp’s policy to share its user data with Facebook, the US-based social network that bought the popular instant messaging application in 2014.

According to petitioners Karmanya Singh Sareen and Shreya Sethi, both law students, the policy breached the privacy of 160 million users in India.

In response, additional solicitor general P Narasimha said data of users were “integral” to the right to life and personal liberty that the Constitution guarantees. “My personal data are intimate to me. If there is any contractual obligation between the individual and the service provider impinging on an individual’s right, the state will have to intervene and regulate sharing of such data as these are an integral part an individual’s personality,” he said.

The law officer assured the court that regulations would be ready soon to prevent private social media operators from sharing personal data of subscribers without their consent.

The court fixed September 6 for the next hearing, after noting that a nine-judge bench is in the process of determining whether privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.

The government’s stand on social media contradicts its position in the privacy and Aadhaar cases. It said right to privacy is not constitutionally inherent.

According to petitions challenging the Aadhaar law, collection of biometric details to issue the 12-digit unique identification number invades people’s privacy.

The WhatsApp counsel, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, argued that the petition was not maintainable because it was filed by just two people. Besides, he said his client provides free telephony, messaging and data services.

His argument did not convince the bench. Justice Dipak Misra, who headed the bench, said: “When you are facilitating for X,Y or Z, you cannot impose arbitrary conditions. Data protection is a requirement, the nitty-gritty can’t be worked out by the court. Government can do this.”

Sibal also denied WhatsApp shared data with a third party and only Facebook can access the information. He said other platforms such as Google, Yahoo and Uber share subscriber data.

“But nobody criticises them,” said senior advocate Siddhartha Luthra, appearing for Facebook.

In response, justice Misra remarked: “Uber is a taxi operator. That really can’t be compared or equated with a service provider of the present nature (WhatsApp). You (Whatsapp) can’t impose conditions which are against my rights. You can’t control my choice.”

Representing the petitioners, senior advocate Harish Salve said data sharing is “gross transgression of a citizen’s right to privacy”.

“Merely because you (WhatsApp) are a service provider, you cannot say I will open your letter and read it,” he said.


Sino-India standoff Old mechanisms have lost efficacy

Sino-India standoff

The Foreign Office usually doesn’t hold back its counsel, especially under the Modi government. At least it has never been shy of matching each Pakistani volley with one of its own or reminding Nepal of its place under the sun. In the ongoing eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation on the border with China it has adopted a more restrained position, opening the door partly to a civil dialogue on its resolution. Making the first government statement since the stalemate developed over a month ago, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj spelt out the Indian stand: India wishes to peacefully resolve the issue through dialogue. But for that to happen, both countries must withdraw their troops from the faceoff point on the Doklam plateau. India can hardly withdraw first and lose face not just in the present tactical confrontation but in the entire near neighbourhood as well. This is because the Foreign Office maintains that it was the Chinese who unilaterally tried to change the status quo of the tri-junction point between China, India and Bhutan. China, however, is objecting on a different footing altogether. It finds it unacceptable that Indian troops have entered China through Bhutanese territory. The increasing frequency of Sino-Indian standoffs makes it apparent that the previous agreements to keep the border peaceful and tranquil are losing their efficacy. National Security Adviser Ajit Doval’s visit to Beijing next week should bolster attempts by diplomats to achieve closure on the jostling at Doklam. At the same time, both sides will have to start burning the midnight oil to refurbish the existing understandings on not allowing a border standoff to spill out of control. The list of disagreements between India and China has grown in the past three years. These have not been helped by a media campaign so virulent that Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar had to speak out against it. While the Chinese side has been belligerent, such confrontations do not suit the national priorities of both countries. Simultaneously, South Block may have to rework its foreign policy approach because China has displayed its ability to raise tensions at any place of its choosing on the border.


Yet another soldier killed in LoC firing

Yet another soldier killed in LoC firing
File photo

Jammu, July 21

A jawan was killed after the Pakistan army opened unprovoked firing on Indian Army posts in the Sunderbani sector around 6.05 pm today.Rifleman Jayadrath Singh, 28, was grievously injured in the firing and later succumbed to his injuries. The Army retaliated strongly and effectively to the Pakistan firing.(Follow The Tribune on Facebook; and Twitter @thetribunechd)The rifleman belonged to Bhagwanpur village in Saharanpur district of Uttar Pradesh. He is survived by his wife Mamta Devi.“Rifleman Jayadrath Singh was a brave and sincere soldier. The nation will always remain indebted to him for the supreme sacrifice and devotion to duty,” an Army spokesman said. Meanwhile, there were reports of ceasefire violations in the Naugam sector as well as Kupwara’s Keran sector. Eleven persons, including nine soldiers, have been killed in 18 ceasefire violations by Pakistan this month. — TNS


Pentagon urges India, China to reduce tension through direct dialogue

Pentagon urges India, China to reduce tension through direct dialogue
The standoff in the Sikkim sector is seen as part of Chinese coercive tactics to change status quo on border. File

Washington, July 22

The Pentagon has encouraged India and China to engage in a direct dialogue free of any “coercive aspects”.

“We encourage India and China to engage in direct dialogue aimed at reducing tensions and free of any coercive aspects,” Gary Ross, a Defence Department spokesman said.

(Follow The Tribune on Facebook; and Twitter @thetribunechd)

Over the past week, the US State Department too have been making similar statements, but Pentagon has sought direct dialogue between India and China on reducing tension “free of any coercive aspects”.

Notably, in recent past few years, almost all the Chinese neighbours have been accusing Beijing of coercive tactics to settle border disputes.

Read: China justifies construction of road in Sikkim sector

China trying to change status quo on border, says India

The month-long India-China border standoff in the Sikkim sector is seen as part of same Chinese coercive tactics to change the status quo. India has taken a strong stand against such a Chinese move.

National Security Adviser Ajit Doval heads to Beijing to attend a meeting of BRICS later this month. During his visit, Doval is expected to talk with his Chinese counterpart on this issue.

Responding to questions, the Pentagon refused to take sides on the issue.

“We refer you to the Governments of India and China for further information. We encourage India and China to engage in direct dialogue aimed at reducing tensions. We are not going to speculate on such matters,” Ross said when asked if the Pentagon fears escalation of tension between India and China.

Early this week, a top Pentagon Commander told lawmakers that China is exploiting its economic leverage as a way to its regional political objectives.

“The Chinese have shown their willingness to exploit their economic leverage as a way to advance their regional political objectives. As China’s military modernisation continues, the United States and its allies and partners will continue to be challenged to balance China’s influence,” General Paul Selva, USAF, said in written response to questions to the Senate Armed Services Committee for his nominee for reconfirmation as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Selva said deterring war is an exercise in influencing China’s decision calculus, making diplomacy preferable to conflict and managing crises in such a manner that they do not unintentionally escalate.

“To do this, the Joint Force will engage with the Chinese military within Congressionally mandated limits, build alliance capacity through close cooperation, and uphold international law through appropriate operations,” he said in written response to the questions. PTI