Ij reportika Logo
Chinese Maps Throughout History

The Geopolitical Weaponization of Maps by China

Maps, traditionally considered reliable guides through the tapestry of global landscapes, serve as crucial instruments in shaping our understanding of geopolitical boundaries. While designed to illuminate the complexities between nations and territories, maps can, at times, be wielded as potent tools for political influence. In the contemporary geopolitical arena, China has encountered scrutiny for its release of maps that appear to deviate from established cartographic norms, potentially serving political and territorial agendas. This comprehensive investigative report by Investigative Journalism Reportika aims to scrutinize the contentious matter of Chinese maps throughout history, shedding light on the implications these cartographic representations may hold within the broader geopolitical landscape. Download the complete report: Link Chinese Maps Throughout History Embarking on a chronological journey through China’s rich dynastic history unveils the ever-changing territorial landscapes and the dynamics of power. From the Shang/Yin Dynasty to the Qing Dynasty, each era contributed to the geopolitical mosaic. Notably, maps from the Ming and Qing Dynasties exclude regions later claimed by modern China, with the Qing Dynasty’s celebrated depiction overlooking territories demarcated by the contentious “nine-dash line” in the South China Sea. Following is the expansion of the maps of the Chinese ancient dynasties in order, that ruled over China Download the complete report to get the maps of all the dynasties: Link Qing DynastyDate: 1636–1912 AD This map, often referenced by China as a historical source highlighting the largest Chinese empire omits contested territories that China claims in Bhutan, Nepal, India, and the South China Sea (indicated by the “nine-dash line”). The Context of Distorted Maps In 2023, China released an updated map, strategically timed during the “National Mapping Awareness Publicity Week.” This map, hosted on the Ministry of Natural Resources’ cartographic service website, extends territorial claims along China’s western border with India, the South China Sea, and Taiwan. The inclusion of a “ten-dash line” around the South China Sea and Taiwan further complicates maritime disputes, hinting at broader geopolitical maneuvers, especially in the context of China’s rivalry with the United States. The Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan, India, and Vietnam have rejected the map as baseless. In 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 Read Investigative Journalism Reportika Report on Chinese Dubious Maritime Activities and Distant Water Fishing (DWF) to assert its claims in the South China Sea in the report: An Investigation into the Dubious Chinese Distant-Water Fishing Fleet (DWF) Country-Specific Case Studies What is the disputed area between China and Bhutan? China’s historical claims over Bhutan date back to the 1950s, with territorial disputes over areas like Doklam and Sinchulung. Recently, China 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 UNDP-led Global Environment Facility (GEF) conference in June 2020, where China attempted to halt funding for the sanctuary. The surprising aspect of China’s claim is its suddenness, as it had not previously objected to such funding and the fact that the Trashigang area, where the sanctuary is located, does not share a border with China. Which are the disputed areas with Nepal?  In the past, there were allegations of Chinese encroachment into Nepal’s Humla district, marking the first-ever claims of Chinese incursion into Nepalese territory. Additionally, Chinese state media had asserted that Mount Everest falls inside Chinese territory in the region of the Tibet Autonomous Region. These past incidents raised concerns about security and geopolitical motives, shedding light on the potential weaponization of maps in the geopolitical landscape. What are the areas of conflict between India and China? 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, shaped by a complex interplay of historical events, diplomatic agreements, and geopolitical shifts. To unravel the layers of this intricate matter, let’s delve into a summary of its key points, providing insight into the complexities that continue to shape the dynamics between these two nations. In the Aksai Chin region, the Johnson Line, proposed by the British, placed Aksai Chin in India. Tensions escalated in the 1950s when China built a road through Aksai Chin, sparking the 1962 Sino-Indian War with clashes in Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh. China occupied Aksai Chin, ignoring the historical Johnson Line, while India continued to claim it. Arunachal Pradesh, claimed by India but disputed by China, is a source of occasional incursions and tensions. The McMahon Line, drawn by the British, placed Arunachal Pradesh in India, but it was not signed by China. Read the entire report to understand which area of India is disputed with China: Link In the eastern sector border, China claims the entire Arunachal Pradesh, considering it a part of Tibet, and occasional incursions and tensions are reported along the border. The India-China border, including areas in Ladakh and Sikkim, has witnessed occasional military standoffs beyond the Line of Actual Control (LAC). Negotiation attempts have not yielded a definitive solution, and tensions persist, as demonstrated by the Doklam incident in 2017. Historical complexities, with China’s disregard for agreements made during the British-India era, add a layer of tension to this complex issue. SN Disputed Area / Sector (Alternate Names) Chinese Province/Tibet Indian State/UT Operational Control 1 Trans-Karakoram Tract (Shaksgam) Xinjiang Ladakh China 2 Aksai Chin Xinjiang and Tibet Ladakh China 3 Demchok / Dêmqog (Demchok sector) Tibet Ladakh India / China 4 Chumar North Tibet Ladakh India 5 Chumar South Tibet Ladakh India 6 Kaurik (Sumdo) Tibet Himachal Pradesh India 7 Tashigang-Shipki La (Khab and Namgia) Tibet Himachal Pradesh India 8 Jadh Ganga Valley (also Mana Pass) Tibet Uttarakhand India 9 Bara Hoti Tibet Uttarakhand India 10 Part of Arunachal Pradesh (especially Tawang) Tibet Arunachal Pradesh India 11 Upper Siang Tibet Arunachal Pradesh India 12 West Siang Tibet Arunachal Pradesh India Areas of…

Read More

China warns Nepal about ‘outside interference’ following US grant

China warned Nepal this month against what it called interference from outside forces following Nepal’s ratification of a U.S. development grant, while China-tied projects in the country continue to stall, media sources say. The warning came during Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi’s March 25-27 visit to Nepal, and only a month after Nepal’s parliament ratified a $500 million no-strings-attached U.S. grant to build electric power lines and improve roads in the impoverished Himalayan country. Signed by Washington and Kathmandu in 2017, the agreement called the Millenium Challenge Corporation Nepal Compact (MCC-Nepal) was finally ratified by Nepal on Feb. 27 after numerous delays in the country’s parliament. In talks in Kathmandu last week, Wang Yi said that “external interference” in Nepal’s affairs might now threaten the “core interests” of both China and Nepal, according to a March 28 report by the India-based ANI online news service. “China supports Nepal in pursuing ‘independent domestic and foreign policies,’” ANI said, quoting Wang. Regional experts speaking to RFA in interviews this week said Wang Yi’s statements in Nepal reflect Beijing’s growing concern that Kathmandu may no longer rely exclusively on China for supporting its development. Beijing wants to convince Nepalese politicians that China is still a friend to Nepal, said Aadil Brar, a China specialist at the Delhi, India-based online newspaper The Print. “And there is now a certain concern within China that Nepal might be moving closer to the U.S., and so I think that was the primary goal in terms of [Wang Yi’s] three-day visit,” he said. “If we look at the kind of support China offers, it’s mostly in terms of infrastructure projects that are being built in Nepal. But Nepalese politicians usually like to have grants instead of loans, because that helps them make sure they are not going to be dependent on China.” No progress on BRI projects Nepal is seen by China as a partner in its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to boost global trade through infrastructure development, but no agreements on BRI projects or the terms of their loans were signed during Wang Yi’s visit, sources in the country say. “We have seen many politicians and experts here in Nepal who do not approve of China’s Belt and Road Initiative project and consider it threatening to Nepal,” said Sangpo Lama, vice president of HURON, the Human Rights Organization of Nepal. “China’s principle is to give money for BRI projects in Nepal in the form of loans, and not as grants,” Sangpo Lama said. Beijing has been apprehensive ever since Nepal ratified the MCC-Nepal agreement with the United States, said Santosh Sharma, a faculty member at Nepal’s Tribhuvan University and co-founder of the Nepal Institute for Policy Research. “Nepal needs international grants and support to build infrastructure in the country, and China’s Belt and Road Initiative and the MCC grant from the U.S. both serve that purpose. However, by signing the MCC agreement, Nepal has shown just how significant the American grant is,” Sharma said. Wang Yi’s claims of concern for Nepal’s “sovereignty and independence from external forces” only mask Beijing’s greater worry over U.S. influence in Nepal, added Parshuram Kaphle, a special correspondent on foreign and strategic affairs at Nepal’s Naya Patrika newspaper. “However, neither China nor the U.S. will be able to create a bond with Nepal like India has,” Kaphle said. “There is a natural bond between Nepal and India. And geopolitically India will also play a huge role in Nepal’s future.” Though BRI projects in Nepal have so far failed to launch, Nepal’s government has cited promises of millions of dollars of Chinese investment in restricting the activities of an estimated 20,000 Tibetan refugees living in the country, leaving many uncertain of their status and vulnerable to abuses of their rights, rights groups say. Translated by Tenzin Dickyi for RFA’s Tibetan Service. Written in English by Richard Finney.

Read More