Junk ‘One China’ Policy By Lt Gen P R Shankar (R)

The “New Standard” political map released recently by China shows Aksai Chin, Arunachal Pradesh, Taiwan and the area enclosed by an extended Nine Dash line as its integral part.

Published on 04 Sep 2023 in Eurasian Times

Implications of the New Standard Map

The difference between China’s  old position and the new one is that areas which were hitherto fore, part of its territorial claims are now being shown sovereign to it. It has certain direct implications. Firstly, any action taken by China in these areas is legal in its interpretation. Secondly, use of force in these areas  will be justified as it amounts to defending/regaining Chinese sovereign territory.  Thirdly, it is  “lawfare based on the fabricated history” toolkit of Chinese three warfare strategy. Fourthly, it sets the stage for it to take action by force against India or Taiwan at a time of its choosing. Fifthly, Chinese laws will be applicable in these areas and those who are in these areas/pass through these areas will be deemed to be under jurisdiction of Chinese law. China now sees South China Sea as its own. It has international ramification since a huge amount of trade passes through this area.

In releasing this expanded political map, China has thrown the gauntlet down to those who are against or affected by its expansionism. It also underlines the Chinese intent to ignore the international rules based order and supplant it with a Sino Centric order. However, on ground , nothing changes at this point of time except in the South China Sea where trouble can be expected from Chinese maritime aggression or posturing. 

As far as India is concerned, the message is very clear. China will not negotiate on the LAC. To expect that China will even agree to status quo ante of 2020 along the LAC is wishful thinking hereafter. In the short term,  India has to find new ways to leverage China out of Depsang and Demchok. In the long term, India must find a new modus vivendi to handle the larger issue of the LAC and retaking Aksai Chin. India must also expect China to be more militarily aggressive along the LAC based on its new cartographic assertion. China has permanently elevated itself from being a competitor to being an adversary. Events are proving that late Mr George Fernandez was prophetic when he declared  China as India’s Number 1 enemy. In this context, it is relevant the examine issues which puts the whole Chinese fabrication in its correct framework so that necessary action can be taken. 

Report to the US Congressional Commission on China

On  23 Jun 22,  findings of a project report  were presented at the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China. As per this report Pre -1949 official historical records completely discredit the Chinese version. The report concludes that Tibet was never a part of China before the People’s Republic of China (PRC) invaded it in 1950. Maps from the Ming and Qing dynasties prove that Tibet was never part of any Chinese empire. The PRC’s claims to Tibet are baseless. Its version of ‘Chinese history’ is very different from the actual ‘Chinese history’. From historical records, Tibet is occupied territory. This brings the India -Tibet-China triangle into focus along with  the Sino-Indian border issues at play. With the publication of this map with fabricated borders, there is reason for India to review its stand completely. It  is therefore necessary to step back into history and relook at issues involved from different perspectives. 

Chinese Historical Perspective

Historically, the outer frontiers of Imperial China were defined by the ‘Great Wall’. It was built to keep outsiders at bay and protect the Silk road from marauders descending from Tibet and Mongolia.  The Great Wall defines the outer limits of China’s boundaries.  However there is no ‘Single’ Great Wall of China. There were a series of Walls raised by different dynasties depending on the extent of their empire and what they considered China. 

Taking into consideration all the Walls, only the areas within these walls is part of China. Mutatis mutandis, anything outside is not China and that includes Tibet.  From this fundamental logic it is quite clear that there is only ‘One China’, which is the area encompassed by the Great Wall to the North and the coast line to the South. The areas of Tibet, Xinjiang and Taiwan are well outside the ‘One China’ based on historical evidence. Till as late as 1932 Tibet, Xinjiang (Sinkiang), Manchuria, Mongolia and Taiwan were not part of  China. This is borne out by an US map of those times (see below). Xinjiang, Manchuria and  Mongolia were assimilated into China during a politically turbulent period  which spans the Japanese occupation, the civil war and up to the end of the second world war. Tibet was invaded and annexed in 1956.

Tibetan Perspective

As per Tibetan history,  Songtsen Gampo (627-649) ruled Tibet as an  independent kingdom  in the 7th  century. He married a Chinese princess to establish relations with China. Buddhism also entered Tibet from India around that time. Tibet remained independent till Mongols conquered and ruled China and Tibet in the 13th Century. When Mongols waned, the succeeding Ming dynasty (1368-1644) did not take over Tibet. The next (and last) imperial Qing dynasty (1644-1911), were Manchus. In 1720, political turmoil in Tibet enabled   Manchus   to intervene and restore order in Tibet. Thereafter, their Resident in Lhasa exercised control, till their own dynasty collapsed. All this while, Tibet retained its own official and legal system. The Qing’s did not attempt to formalise Tibet as a Chinese province. This nebulous relationship was termed as ‘Chinese Suzerainty ’ by the Britishers. In 1904, when Col Younghusband’s expedition entered Lhasa, Chinese influence waned.  In 1912, Chiang Kai Shek’s Nationalist Government declared Tibet as part of China. Immediately, in February 1913, the 13th  Dalai Lama declared the independence of Tibet and expelled all Chinese. This created a de-facto independent Tibet with its own flag, army, government, language, currency and border control. The British presence forced the Chinese out of the area. As the British power waned after India’s independence, the Communist Party, in 1949,  instigated the Panchen Lama to appeal to them to liberate Tibet. In 1950, the PLA invaded Tibet through this ruse and the rest is history. The long and short of it is that Tibet was forced to amalgamate into China. It was never an integral or sovereign part of China as often claimed by the PRC. The relationship between Tibet and China was of only suzerainty periodically. All this is now buttressed by the Report to the US Congressional committee.

Indian Perspective

Tibet was not recognized as part of China till the 2003 agreement was reached. The 2003 agreement  reads “The Indian side agrees to designate Changgu of Sikkim state as the venue for border trade market; the Chinese side agrees to designate Renqinggang of the Tibet Autonomous Region as the venue for border trade market”. It is only this paraphrasing which establishes recognition of Tibet as part of China and Sikkim as part of India. Nathu La pass is mentioned as an entry and exit point and hence is treated as the border by common understanding. In 2003, it was never contended by China that the Tibet Autonomous Region extended South of the Mac Mahon Line. The common understanding was that Tibet was generally North of the Mac Mahon Line even if the line was itself in dispute at some places. This is borne out by a postage map of China of 1917 vintage which clearly indicates that Arunachal Pradesh was never part of Tibet. Also the alignment  the Northern Boundary is more or less along the traditional concept.  Also Tibet , Xinjiang and Mongolia are shown as separate parts. 

Chinese claims on Arunachal Pradesh as South Tibet started after 2003. It was in 2006 that China came out with a map on its Water Ministry Website (now removed) wherein it laid  its cartographic claim on Arunachal as South Tibet. In claiming so, the Chinese actually violated their commitments of 2003. Further, China has violated all Sino-Indian agreements in their 2020 aggression in Eastern Ladakh. In view of just these facts, it is perfectly legal that India does not recognise Tibet as part of China.

Sakteng Gambit

In 2020, China laid claim on the Sakteng Sanctuary, which is 100 km deep into Bhutan. This area is contiguous to the Tawang Tract. The Chinese have now started claiming this area also as part of South Tibet. The Chinese have simultaneously revived Mao’s palm and five finger theory which says that  “Xizang (Tibet) is China’s right hand’s palm, which is detached from its five fingers — of Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and Arunachal. As all of these five are either occupied by, or under the influence of India, it is China’s responsibility to ‘liberate’ the five to be re-joined with Xizang (Tibet)”. With publication of this map which does not include Sakteng, it must be noted that China has virtually renounced its claims to this part of Bhutanese territory. Further Mao’s Five Finger theory stands debased. 

One China 

The One China principle is a core issue by which PRC lays claim to Taiwan. By extension, this principle is used to give legitimacy to all areas it has usurped and all other territories it now lays claim to. The One China principle is however, based on false premises and deceitful distortion of history done in typical communist fashion. 

In the 17th Century, Taiwan was a Dutch colony. After a brief period of independence it was taken over by Imperial China. Later it became a  Japanese colony (1895 to 1952). Japan ceded sovereignty over Taiwan as per the Treaty of San Francisco and Treaty of Taipei on 28 April 1952 to the Republic of China(ROC) and not to the PRC (CCP). Ever since then, Taiwan has been an independent state. It has never been ruled by the Communists even for a day. Till the mid 70’s, many governments did not recognise the PRC.  Most governments recognised and dealt with the ROC. It was only when the United States recognized the PRC in 1979 that the very idea and concept of the ‘One China’ principle came into being. As per this, PRC insists that Taiwan is an unalienable breakaway part of its territory. PRC  wants to annexe it by force if necessary. In fact this has been one of the  key themes even in the recent 20th Party Congress of the PRC.  From all perspectives, the One China principle is a recent day construct and is not based on historical evidence.

Nine Dash Line

China twisted and manufactured history in the form of the Nine Dash Line  to lay claim on the entire South China Sea. Not paying heed to Chinese expansionist intent and not contending its falsehoods emboldened PRC to establish artificial islands in South China Sea and controlling part of it. In the new ‘Standard Map’ China has extended the Nine Dash line to cover Taiwan and the seas around it. Further the Senkaku Islands which are in dispute with Japan have also been encompassed. China has converted its claim into sovereign territory over most of the South China Sea. It will now start laying sight to claim and control the balance of South China Sea. 

Conclusion

When all these historical perspectives are viewed along with shifting Chinese stances, the hegemonistic designs and ambitions of PRC stand fully exposed. Overall, certain facts emerge. Tibet is legally not part of China. Further, the Tibet, India recognised in 2003 is also now in dispute due to additional claims into Arunachal Pradesh and their violation of all agreements during their 2020 aggression in Eastern Ladakh. Hence there is a legal and justifiable case for India to change its position and negotiating stance with the Chinese. Also, the Chinese claims on Bhutanese territory are rendered invalid by their own map. This aspect must be reinforced and ensured that the Bhutanese do not budge. Also, there is a pressing case for India to take lead to form a group of nations for restoration of territory / maritime rights which have been usurped/impeded by China.  The ball is now in India’s court. It must be played in the forthcoming ASEAN forum, G20 meet, or through direct negotiations with the Chinese. Mere protests and condemnation of  Chinese stance will not help.  For a starter junk the One China policy altogether.