See More on Facebook

Diplomacy, Opinion

OPINION: China on maps

Why is China destroying its old maps.


Written by

Updated: July 7, 2019

Xi Jinping of China is not a person who would take any decision in a hurry — least of all one that affects his country’s security and territorial integrity. Weeks, if not months, must have preceded his momentous decision to destroy all the old maps depicting China’s frontiers and, thus, affirm the existing, current maps as the only ones to be valid.

China has land borders with 14 countries and maritime borders with at least nine other countries. The People’s Republic of China was established 70 years ago in 1949. Since 1960, it has settled its boundaries with 12 of the 14 countries with which it shares land borders. They are Myanmar, Nepal, North Korea, Pakistan, Mongolia, Afghanistan, Laos, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Russia.

Its land boundaries remain unsettled only with India and Bhutan — with India, actually because Bhutan will proceed ahead once India settles the boundary dispute with China. The territory in contention with Bhutan is not large but is of strategic significance.

Before we come to the tearing up of old maps, one historical fact must be borne in mind. The linear boundary arrived in Asia long after it won acceptance in Europe’s boundary treaties.

Asia had frontier ‘zones’ called ilaqas. Colonial rulers drew some lines on maps such as the Durand Line with Afghanistan, and the McMahon Line with Tibet, which China took over in 1950.

What India’s prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru overlooked was that, from 1949 to 1959, China did not contest the McMahon Line. Its area of vital interest was the Aksai Chin in Ladakh. Its Tibet-Xinjiang Highway ran through it. Likewise, India’s vital interest was the McMahon Line in the east. China did not protest at all when India ousted the shadowy Tibetan administration in Tawang in February 1951.

On July 1, 1954, Nehru took a fateful and unwise step. In a memorandum to senior officials of the external affairs ministry he directed:

“All our old maps dealing with this frontier should be carefully examined and, where necessary, withdrawn. New maps should be printed showing our northern and north-eastern frontier without any reference to any ‘line’. The new maps should also be sent to our embassies abroad and should be introduced to the public generally and be used in our schools, colleges, etc.

“Both as flowing from our policy and as consequence of our agreement with China, this frontier should be considered a firm and definite one which is not open to discussion with anybody. There may be very minor points of discussion. Even these should not be raised by us. It is necessary that the system of check posts should be spread along this entire frontier. More especially, we should have check posts in such places as might be considered disputed areas.”

He was thus shutting the door to compromise. In April 1960, China’s prime minister Zhou Enlai arrived in New Delhi with a large delegation that included his foreign minister. In private talks with Nehru, he accepted the McMahon Line but insisted on Nehru’s acceptance of China’s line in the Aksai Chin — a pre-eminently sound solution.

But Nehru felt himself bound by his new maps, which had won public acceptance. He rejected the offer. In 2019, India would be only glad to accept China’s offer in 1960. But China has since revised its terms — India must first concede Tawang to the south of the McMahon Line.

Therein lies the significance of President Xi Jinping’s decision. As with Nehru in 1954, so with him in 2019 — the map ties his hands. The new map will make a settlement based on a compromise difficult, if not impossible.

In international law, maps are of little worth. To begin with, they are not documents of title. If annexed to a boundary treaty, they are treated only as illustrations — it is the written text that prevails. If opposed to a country’s boundary claims, they might be regarded as an admission.

A singularly statesman-like example was set by president Ayub Khan. When reports came in of petty skirmishes between Pakistan and China’s troops on the frontier, the then foreign minister — pro-West and anti-Communist to the core — hit the roof. Ayub Khan kept his cool and simply asked the Foreign Office coolly to examine where the boundary lay. They examined the maps and concluded that there was no defined boundary agreed between the countries. It was him who initiated and pressed for a settlement.

The upshot was the Sino-Pakistan boundary agreement signed on March 2, 1963, under which Pakistan received from China 2,000 square kilometres of administered territory — contrary to the legend falsely spread by the Americans that Pakistan yielded land to China. As has been well said, boundary-marking is the task of a surveyor — boundary-making is the task of a statesman.

s an author and a lawyer based in Mumbai.


Enjoyed this story? Share it.


Dawn
About the Author: Dawn is Pakistan's oldest and most widely read English-language newspaper.

Eastern Briefings

All you need to know about Asia


Our Eastern Briefings Newsletter presents curated stories from 22 Asian newspapers from South, Southeast and Northeast Asia.

Sign up and stay updated with the latest news.



By providing us with your email address, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

View Today's Newsletter Here

Diplomacy, Opinion

Trump again cites questionable numbers related to Korea trade deal

Trump has used the trade deal to bolster his credentials back home. US President Donald Trump again cited questionable numbers on Tuesday as he touted his administration’s renegotiated free trade agreement with South Korea. Trump told the Economic Club of New York that the revised FTA, which took effect early this year, doubled the number of American cars that can be sold in South Korea under US standards and extended American tariffs on Korean pickup trucks by another 20 years to 2041. He then took a swipe at the previous administration of Barack Obama, which negotiated the original agreement. “The deal from the previous admini


By The Korea Herald
November 13, 2019

Diplomacy, Opinion

Uncertainty persists on US – China trade deal

This despite Trump’s comments that US and China close to trade deal. US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday (Nov 12) that the United States and China are close to a trade deal, but made clear that the prospect of tariffs was still on the table, with a warning that the US would raise tariffs on China if no trade deal was reached. His speech at the Economic Club of New York was closely watched by Wall Street but offered no new details on any signing of a much-touted “Phase One” preliminary trade deal with China. China, said President Trump, was dying to make a deal with their “supply chains cracking very badly” almost two years into the trade war. “We’re the ones deciding whether or not we want t


By The Straits Times
November 13, 2019

Diplomacy, Opinion

India should have signed up for RCEP

India has decided to put a halt on its joining the largest planned free trade area. Had India not pulled out at the last minute from signing the deal during the 3rd summit of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) in Bangkok on November 4, the RCEP would have been the largest free trade area in the world so far—comprising of 16 Asia Pacific countries that house 3.4 billion people, and constituting one-third of the global gross domestic product (GDP) and 40 percent of global trade. Ten member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) along with Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea fo


By The Kathmandu Post
November 13, 2019

Diplomacy, Opinion

Ayodhya verdict is silent on why Muslims must prove exclusive possession of site

The Indian court has deprived Muslims of the disputed plot because they couldn’t show exclusive possession before 1857. On page 215 of the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid verdict, delivered by a five-judge bench on Saturday, the Supreme Court makes a crucial statement of logic: “It is true that in matters of faith and belief, the absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence.” But in its final findings, the court contradicted this same logic. The crux of the judgment that India has awaited since 1949 is that Muslims failed to show unimpeded possession of the disputed site in Ayodhya between 1528, when the mosque was supposedly built by Mughal emperor Babur, and 1857, when, after a clash between Muslims and Hindus, a railing was erected between the inner and outer courtyards at the disputed site. The inner courtyard is where the mosque demolished by Hindutva mobs in 1992 stood. The outer courtyard has se


By Dawn
November 12, 2019

Diplomacy, Opinion

Myanmar sued for genocide

On behalf of OIC, Gambia files the case at Int’l Court of Justice seeking orders to stop atrocities on Rohingyas immediately.  The Gambia has filed a case at the United Nations’ top court, accusing Myanmar of committing genocide against its Rohingya Muslim minority, more than two years after some 750,000 Rohingyas fled a military crackdown in the Rakhine State. “We have just submitted our application to the ICJ under the Genocide Convention,” Gambian Justice Minister Abubacarr Tambadou said at a news conference yesterday in The Hague, where the court is based. “The aim is to get Myanmar to account for its action against its own people: the Rohingya. It is a shame for our generation that we do nothing while genocide is unfolding right under our own eyes,” he said. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the World Court, is the U


By Daily Star
November 12, 2019

Diplomacy, Opinion

HK must hold the line, uphold democracy in elections

An editorial in China’s State Run Media. “Deliberate violence”, said the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, “is more to be quenched than a fire.” Although Hong Kong elections have traditionally been relatively peaceful affairs, this has now changed. After the anti-extradition protests morphed into urban guerrilla warfare, every institution is now at risk. A culture of violence has now taken hold, buttressed by a willingness to use crude intimidation of others, whether in politics, the universities, or on the streets. The latest victim of this phenomenon is legislator Junius Ho Kwan-yiu. Out campaigning for a District Council seat in Tuen Mun, he was stabbed in the chest by a stranger. The crime was obviously pre-meditated, and the suspected offender will hopefully be charged with attempted murder. Shortly before the attack, Ho’s local office had been hit by fire bom


By China Daily
November 11, 2019