A new report documents the manipulation of borders by the CCP’s cartography. Its first victims are human beings, not geography only.
by Marco Respinti
In a recent two-article exclusive report on Tibetans enlisted in the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) People’s Liberation Army (PLA), “Bitter Winter” mentioned the use of geography and history by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to advance its ideological propaganda.
A substantial aspect of geography is cartography. In the intricate tapestry of global geopolitics, maps, traditionally viewed as neutral navigational aids, have lately emerged as powerful tools for shaping political narratives. In this scenario, the CCP has drawn attention for its strategic use of maps that appear to deviate from established norms, raising concerns about the geopolitical weaponization of cartography and drafting an ideologized employment of history as a “nuclear option.” The distortions and the far-reaching implications that those maps carry within the broader geopolitical and human landscapes make the topic extremely sensitive.
“Investigative Journalism Reportika” (IJR) made it the subject of a comprehensive report, which delves into the historical context of maps of ancient and recent China, used or designed by the PRC. IJR is a nonprofit news organization. Founded in December 2021, it started its website in March 2022 from New York. Consisting of 89 experts, it is present today in 23 countries.
Table of Contents
The interdependence between geography and politics
Two clarifications are needed first, in face of the many definitions of geopolitics that have been given by different scholars, stressing a variety of aspects that in some respects are all true. For the sake of the argument of this article, it is safe to understand geopolitics as the interdependence between geography and politics. The virtual immutability of the first exerts a decisive role in shaping the dynamics of the latter, both within and outside a country. This quasi-definition includes also the effort by political powers to go beyond the natural immutability of geography in trying to alter, manipulate, or distort certain geographical features.
Secondly, as Chinese civilization is one of the oldest in humanity—its first distinctive elements having been dated to the third millennium BCE, during the Bronze Age—, the scholarly established use is to sectionalize its history according to the reigning dynastyes. So, dynasties give their name to time periods. Only exceptionally, different names have been employed, for example the “Spring and Autumn Period,” ca. 770–481 BCE, or the “Three Kingdoms,” 220–280 CE. That use ceased with the establishment of the Republic of China (ROC) in 1912, which continues up to today in Taiwan, and was substituted in 1949, and to this day, by the People’s Republic of China on the Mainland.
History and Chinese maps
Embarking on a chronological journey through China’s rich history, the IJR’s report illustrates the ever-changing territorial landscapes of that country and the dynamics of power within it. From the Shang dynasty, also known as Yin dynasty (ca.1600–ca.1045 BCE), to the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912), each subsequent era in Chinese history contributed much to the national, transnational, and international mosaic of that human area of Asia that has been and continues to be shaped by Chinese culture and power. Notably, maps from the Ming (1368–1644) and Qing (1644–1911) dynasties, which represent the largest extension of the Chinese empire ever, are today weaponized by the CCP to justify its territorial claims through a domesticated revisitation of history. Curiously, though, those ancient maps exclude some geographical areas now bombastically claimed by Beijing for the PRC.
A pivotal event in this battle of maps has been the publication of the Resources, that continues to spark international debate and commentary. It in fact “notably includes” within the PRC boundaries, the IJR’s report notes, “contentious areas,” “intensifying […] disputes with Southeast Asian nations.” Later—the IJR’s report continues—, “[i]n response to widespread rejection by numerous nations, China asserted that its maps should be considered with a rational and objective lens as it sought to justify the demarcations.”
Also, the release of the new map was strategically timed “during the celebration of Surveying and Mapping Publicity Day and the National Mapping Awareness Publicity Week […] in Deqing county, Zhejiang province,” to achieve a clear—if pompous—propagandistic effect.
Country-specific case studies: Bhutan and Nepal
PRC’s historical claims over Bhutan date back to the 1950s, with territorial controversy over areas like Doklam and Sinchulung.
Recently, the PRC asserted a territorial claim over the Sakteng Wildlife Sanctuary in Bhutan as well, contending that it falls within disputed areas between the two countries. This claim was brought to attention during a conference of the Global Environment Facility (GEF)— a fund that provides grants for projects on biodiversity, climate change and related matters—led in June 2020 by the United Nations Development Programme. The latter is a UN agency that aims at eliminating poverty by promoting economic growth. At the conference, the PRC tried to halt funding for the sanctuary. The surprising aspect of Beijing’s claim is its suddenness, as it had not previously objected to such funding. In fact, the Trashigang area, where the sanctuary is found, does not share any border with the PRC.
In the past, there were allegations of Chinese encroachment into Nepal’s Humla district, marking the first-ever claims of the PRC’s incursion into Nepalese territory. Additionally, Chinese state media had asserted that Mount Everest falls within the PRC’s boundaries in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR). Even if this ridiculous assertion was then somewhat corrected by saying that Everest is located on the Nepal-PRC border, these past incidents are the source of continuous and serious concerns over security.
Country-specific case studies: India
The enduring border dispute between India and China is a deeply rooted and multifaceted issue, with historical origins dating back to the 19th century. This ongoing challenge has evolved over time, shaped by a complex interplay of historical events, diplomatic agreements, and geopolitical shifts. To unravel the layers of this intricate matter, it is necessary to focus into at least a summary of its key points, providing insight into the intricacies that continue to shape the relations between the two countries.
Aksai Chin is a semi-desert in the north-west of India. In colonial times, the British Indian government established three lines of boundaries for India. One is the Ardagh–Johnson Line, whose name derives from the man who recommended it, Anglo-Irish military engineer Major-General Sir John Charles Ardagh (1840–1907), and the man who drew it, William H. Johnson (†1883), a British surveyor engaged in the project of mapping the sub-continent with scientific criteria named “Great Trigonometrical Survey of India,” completed between 1802 and 1871.
The Ardagh–Johnson Line placed Aksai Chin in India. Tensions escalated in the 1950s when the PRC built a road through it, causing the 1962 Sino-Indian War with clashes in both Aksai Chin and the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. As a result, the PLA occupied Aksai Chin, while India continues to claim it. Arunachal Pradesh, a part of India that is claimed by the PRC, is also a source of occasional incursions and tensions.
Arunachal Pradesh was placed inside India by the McMahon Line, a second out of the three boundaries for India set by the British, deriving its name from Sir Vincent Arthur Henry McMahon (1862–1949), Foreign Secretary of British India. That line set the border between British India and Tibet based on the 1914 measurements that were agreed upon during the Convention Between Great Britain, China, and Tibet, commonly referred to as the “Simla Convention,” negotiated in 1913–1914 in the city of Simla, Arunachal Pradesh, India. At the time, the Republic of China did not recognize the McMahon line. So does the PRC until today, using it as an occasion of continuous contrast with Delhi and an excuse to advance its fake case of Tibet being, and having always been, a part of China.
Country-specific case studies: India II
In the eastern sector border, the PRC claims the entire Arunachal Pradesh, considering it a part of the TAR, and occasional incursions and tensions are reported along the border. Historical complexities always added an additional layer of tension to the PRC’s disregard for agreements made during the British India era, transforming the situation into a real hornets’ nest.
For example, the India-China border, including areas in Ladakh and Sikkim, has witnessed occasional military clashes beyond the Line of Actual Control (LAC), the totally informal border that separates the PRC’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (XUAR) and the TAR in the north from India’s Ladakh union territory, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, and Arunachal Pradesh states in the south, along the Himalayas. It was designed as a de facto compromise following the cease-fire that froze the Sino-Indian War of 1962. Later negotiation attempts have never yielded a definitive solution, and tensions persist, as demonstrated by the Doklam incident in 2017. This was a standoff that put the Indian Armed Forces and the PLA face to face from June 16 to August 28, 2017, over the PRC’s construction of a road in Doklam, an area in Bhutan that is claimed by Beijing. As a result, several soldiers were injured on both sides.
Country-specific case studies: Japan
The territorial disputes between Tokyo and Beijing over the islands in the East China Sea that in the PRC are known as Diaoyu Islands remain a longstanding and complex issue. Beijing claims the islands on the alleged historical evidence that they have been an integral part of Chinese territory since ancient times. Pointing to historical records from the Ming and Qing dynasties, it asserts that the islands were first discovered, named, and occupied by Chinese people in the early 15th century.
On the contrary, Japan asserts its sovereignty over them, which it calls Senkaku Islands, challenging the PRC’s historical narrative. In fact, Tokyo maintains that they were lawfully incorporated into Japanese territory following the First Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895) and rejects the assertion of the PRC that they were “terra nullius,” or “nobody’s land,” a Latin expression used in international law to justify the acquisition by a country of a territory “occupied by no one.” Part of the dispute regards the Japanese administration over the islands that Tokyo exerted, under US control, from 1945 to 1972, before regaining them fully: for Japan it was valid under international law, while it was not so for the PRC.
One should additionally note that the ROC (Taiwan) too claims sovereignty over them, with the name Tiaoyutai Islands. Since they were put under the administration of the Chinese province of Taiwan since ancient times, be Taiwan part of the PRC or not today, those islands, Taipei asserts in face of Japan, are Taiwanese.
The PRC’s dispute with ROC’s (Taiwan)
Of course, Taiwan itself is a matter of litigation. In the South China Sea, the boundary between the territories of the PRC and ROC Taiwan is set by a disputed maritime demarcation known as the “nine-dash line.” This is an ideal barrier in the sea, south of the southern coasts of China, made of a number of distinct segments drawn on maps in a U-shape to represent borders that are subject to abundant arbitrariness.
The variation in the number of those segments that Beijing has previously operated and still does in the 2023 map represents its most evident attempt to expand territorial claims at the expense of others. In fact, in that redesigned map of the PRC, the “nine-dash line” evolved into a “ten-dash line,” adding segments to add territories, and including also Taiwan.
Human geography
The PRC’s weaponization of geography highlighted in the precious IRJ’s report reveal a dangerous trend that should worry international organizations, as it constantly threatens world peace. But there is a second important consideration that, thanks to the report, catches the eye of the observer. In fact, while all territorial disputes of the world and all contested claims in history can always potentially ignite bloody conflicts, the case of the PRC is peculiar.
The PRC is not a normal country. It is a totalitarian regime where liberty goes from total absence to hyper-surveillance, citizens cannot express themselves in democratic ways and are completely in the hands of a controlling power, and all sorts of abuses are committed against them. So, when the PRC wants to extend its sovereignty over other territories, it means that its tyrannical rule is ready to be extended to their inhabitants in a most blatant violation of international law and human rights.
Geopolitics of human beings should then be considered too, in parallel to geopolitics of power. A keen look at maps is indeed relevant to shape international relations that can be peaceful, but this cannot never come at the expense of the human beings who inhabit those maps. In the view of the CCP, all is functional to the assertion of power and its aggrandizement. In fact, the PRC’s manipulation of cartography seriously ignores the geography of cultures and their prerogatives, nurturing abuses and repressions. Human beings are the first victims in this cynical Risiko game, so they must be the first concern of all.