Did China base its Doklam tri-junction claims on outdated geographic surveys?

[Akasa]

A cross post of mine from another thread on PDF...

For anyone wishing to look further into the geographic context, this is where most of this article's information comes from: https://thewire.in/159407/doklam-india-china-bhutan/

A summary of the issue:

• The 1890 Sino-British Treaty marks the beginning of the boundary at what it thought was Mount Gipmochi
• However, 20th century surveys have incorrectly placed Mt. Gipmochi
• Modern databases show that Mt. Gipmochi is actually 5 km east of where earlier maps presumed it to be; this means that Mt. Gipmochi is actually an inaccurate marker for the location of the tri-junction
• As such (and continuing from my above point), the tri-junction was actually intended to be near modern-day Batang La (as per Indian & Bhutanese claims) but was mis-labeled by the text of the 1890 treaty
• Hence, any Chinese road building in what it currently thinks is Chinese territory would actually be in Bhutanese territory if we go by modern day databases and maps
• The aforementioned road building would then be a violation of the 1998 Sino-Bhutanese agreement to maintain a status quo
• In short, China is exerting its claims based on the wording of the British Treaty alone, which is devoid of any correct geographic context

However, some problems do arise with this argument:

• The article does mention that Mt. Gipmochi has been incorrectly surveyed many times, but the author uses a 1861 map (which predates the Sino-British Treaty by some 29 odd years)
• If a 1890-ish map shows an accurate (by modern standards) location of Mt. Gipmochi, then China's claims are valid since the tri-junction would be located in the same place as China claims and not at Batang La (5 km to the east)
• If a 1890-ish map shows an outdated location for Mt. Gipmochi, then India/Bhutan's claims are valid since the Sino-British Treaty would be referring to modern-day Batang La (but incorrectly worded it as "Mt. Gipmochi" due to inaccurate surveys at that particular time)
• Additionally, India's treaty with Bhutan allows Indian troops to intervene at the behest of Bhutan. Thus far, there has been no evidence that Bhutan has requested the deployment of Indian military personnel.
• Hence, both sides are at fault for either instigating or escalating this situation. Nevertheless, it goes to show just how important surveying is (for reference, the 1962 Sino-Indian War was a direct result of improper surveying done to demarcate the McMahon Line).

I'll use some figures to illustrate my point:

Figure 1: this 1861 British Map incorrectly locates Mt. Gipmochi. In modern day maps, it would be located 5 km to the east of what is depicted here. Since the treaty marks the tri-junction to be in reference to Mt. Gipmochi, then the tri-junction should actually be near Batang La (if the British used an outdated map to formulate the Treaty).

Figure 2: this is a simplified map to show the extent of discrepancies between Chinese and Indian claims. The Chinese red dotted line originates from Mt. Gipmochi. What the Chinese fail to mention is that the British thought Mt. Gipmochi was where Batang La is according to modern map. Hence, the British really meant the tri-junction to start at Batang La -- this is consistent with Indian and Bhutanese claims.

Figure 3: this brings all three points together. Mt. Gipmochi is clearly pinned, as are the Doklam region and Batang La. If the Chinese are going by purely the text of the 1890 Sino-British Treaty, then its road under construction would be within Chinese territory. However, if the British were indeed incorrect in surveying the location of the Gipmochi mountain (and hence intending the tri-junction to actually start at Batang La), then the road would be already inside Bhutanese territory. The latter scenario would be a direct violation of the 1998 Sino-Bhutanese Agreement to maintain the current border status quo.

====

Well, there you have it; I am trying to be as impartial as possible but I've also offered a few scenarios and mentioned a few gaps in both sides' arguments. The main issue at hand is whether international law (if it ever gets exercised) would go by the text of the Sino-British Treaty or by the geographic context -- the key lies in whether a 1890s-ish British map of Mt. Gipmochi exists, and whether that map follows the modern-day survey or an outdated early-1800s version.

 

[navtrek]

A cross post of mine from another thread on PDF...

For anyone wishing to look further into the geographic context, this is where most of this article's information comes from: https://thewire.in/159407/doklam-india-china-bhutan/

A summary of the issue:

• The 1890 Sino-British Treaty marks the beginning of the boundary at what it thought was Mount Gipmochi
• However, 20th century surveys have incorrectly placed Mt. Gipmochi
• Modern databases show that Mt. Gipmochi is actually 5 km east of where earlier maps presumed it to be; this means that Mt. Gipmochi is actually an inaccurate marker for the location of the tri-junction
• As such (and continuing from my above point), the tri-junction was actually intended to be near modern-day Batang La (as per Indian & Bhutanese claims) but was mis-labeled by the text of the 1890 treaty
• Hence, any Chinese road building in what it currently thinks is Chinese territory would actually be in Bhutanese territory if we go by modern day databases and maps
• The aforementioned road building would then be a violation of the 1998 Sino-Bhutanese agreement to maintain a status quo
• In short, China is exerting its claims based on the wording of the British Treaty alone, which is devoid of any correct geographic context

However, some problems do arise with this argument:

• The article does mention that Mt. Gipmochi has been incorrectly surveyed many times, but the author uses a 1861 map (which predates the Sino-British Treaty by some 29 odd years)
• If a 1890-ish map shows an accurate (by modern standards) location of Mt. Gipmochi, then China's claims are valid since the tri-junction would be located in the same place as China claims and not at Batang La (5 km to the east)
• If a 1890-ish map shows an outdated location for Mt. Gipmochi, then India/Bhutan's claims are valid since the Sino-British Treaty would be referring to modern-day Batang La (but incorrectly worded it as "Mt. Gipmochi" due to inaccurate surveys at that particular time)
• Additionally, India's treaty with Bhutan allows Indian troops to intervene at the behest of Bhutan. Thus far, there has been no evidence that Bhutan has requested the deployment of Indian military personnel.
• Hence, both sides are at fault for either instigating or escalating this situation. Nevertheless, it goes to show just how important surveying is (for reference, the 1962 Sino-Indian War was a direct result of improper surveying done to demarcate the McMahon Line).

I'll use some figures to illustrate my point:

Figure 1: this 1861 British Map incorrectly locates Mt. Gipmochi. In modern day maps, it would be located 5 km to the east of what is depicted here. Since the treaty marks the tri-junction to be in reference to Mt. Gipmochi, then the tri-junction should actually be near Batang La (if the British used an outdated map to formulate the Treaty).
View attachment 419010

Figure 2: this is a simplified map to show the extent of discrepancies between Chinese and Indian claims. The Chinese red dotted line originates from Mt. Gipmochi. What the Chinese fail to mention is that the British thought Mt. Gipmochi was where Batang La is according to modern map. Hence, the British really meant the tri-junction to start at Batang La -- this is consistent with Indian and Bhutanese claims.
View attachment 419011

Figure 3: this brings all three points together. Mt. Gipmochi is clearly pinned, as are the Doklam region and Batang La. If the Chinese are going by purely the text of the 1890 Sino-British Treaty, then its road under construction would be within Chinese territory. However, if the British were indeed incorrect in surveying the location of the Gipmochi mountain (and hence intending the tri-junction to actually start at Batang La), then the road would be already inside Bhutanese territory. The latter scenario would be a direct violation of the 1998 Sino-Bhutanese Agreement to maintain the current border status quo.
View attachment 419012

====

Well, there you have it; I am trying to be as impartial as possible but I've also offered a few scenarios and mentioned a few gaps in both sides' arguments. The main issue at hand is whether international law (if it ever gets exercised) would go by the text of the Sino-British Treaty or by the geographic context -- the key lies in whether a 1890s-ish British map of Mt. Gipmochi exists, and whether that map follows the modern-day survey or an outdated early-1800s version.

Thanks for the share. I just hope this whole mess gets resolved through negotiations. The worst thing to do would be to go to war over it.