Maps have always played a pivotal role in shaping geopolitical realities. They serve as powerful tools of communication, shaping public perception and, at times, laying the groundwork for territorial aggressions. China understands this power well and has been actively using maps to assert its territorial claims.

Recently, on the eve of G-20 countries meeting in New Delhi, China’s Ministry of Natural Resources released the 2023 edition of its map that shows vastly dispersed territories that it falsely claims its own. For example, Chiba’s map includes in its claim the entire Bolshoi Ussuriysky Island, which is located at the junction of the Ussuri and Amur rivers that separate Russia and China.

The dispute, according to Russian Foreign Ministry, was settled 15 years ago. But now when Russia is embroiled in the Ukrainian War and needs China’s support, China thinks it can get away with its old cartographic claim on the island that was divided between the two countries in 2008. For China mutually agreed international agreements are good enough only so long they serve its interests.

One of the most controver- sial examples of China’s cartographic aggressions is the infa- mous Nine-Dash Line. This demarcation, found on Chinese maps, encircles nearly the entire South China Sea, encompassing vast swathes of territory claimed by other countries such as Viet- nam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei. China’s false historical claims do not hold up to international legal scrutiny, but who is talking? China’s might is its right.
China’s cartographic overreach is not confined to lines on maps; it also involves the actual creation of territory.

China has embarked on extensive land reclamation projects in the South China Sea, turning submerged reefs into artificial islands. These reclaim- ed islands have military infra structure, raising serious app- rehensions about China’s strat- egic intentions in the region.
China’s cartographic aggressions have no doubt strained its relationships with neighboring countries. The Philippines, in particular, challenged China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea through arbitration at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague on 12 July 2016. The court ruled overwhelmingly in favour of the Philippines, rejecting China’s historical claims as insufficient under international law. However, China refused to accept the verdict and continued its activities in the disputed water.

In the face of China’s insidious cartographic aggressions, the international community has not remained silent. The United States, in particular, has increased its presence in the South China Sea through freedom of navigation and naval exercises with regional allies. These actions are meant to challenge China’s false territorial claims and assert the principles of freedom of navigation under international law.

China’s cartographic aggressions contribute to regional instability, as neighboring countries perceive China as a threat to their territorial sovereignty. Additionally, the militarization of reclaimed islands escalates the potential for conflict in the South China Sea. The future of the South China Sea, and the world’s response to China’s cartographic aggressions, will shape the geopolitics of the 21st century.

One of the most notorious examples of China’s cartographic belligerence is its depiction of India’s territorial boundaries on official Chinese maps. Despite India’s sovereignty over these regions, China has shown Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh as part of its territory.
China’s false cartographic claims are not limited to maps; it is also evident in its infrastructure development along the disputed border. The construction of roads, military installations, and border outposts has raised concerns about China’s intentions and its ability to quickly reinforce its positions in case of conflicts.

One of the best known instances of China’s territorial encroachments in the Himalayas is Aksai Chin, a region in the western sector of the India-China border. China stealthily occupied Aksai Chin in the 1950s and built a strategic highway connecting Tibet and Xinjiang through this area. India’s claims to Aksai Chin have persisted, but China’s control remains.

In 2017, the Doklam stand-off brought attention to another contentious area. China attempted to extend a road in the Doklam plateau, which is claimed by Bhutan but is also strategically important for India.

India intervened to prevent the road’s construction, resulting in a tense standoff that last- ed for over two months before both sides disengaged. China didn’t achieve its goal, but it marked an attempt to change the status quo in the region.
In June 2020, violent clashes erupted in the Galwan Valley, an area situated in the eastern Himalayas. This incident resulted in the death of 20 Indian soldiers. It highlighted China’s incremental actions to alter the ground realities in disputed regions.
Another hotspot is Pangong Lake, where China has been in crementally advancing its posi- tions. The lake straddles the India-China Line of Actual Control (LAC), and China has been building infrastructure and fortifications on its side, leading to stan- doffs and skirmishes.

China’s nibbling of Indian territory in the Himalayas has significant implications for regional stability and security. It raises concerns about China’s intentions in the region and its willingness to challenge the status quo. These actions have also led to increased military deployments, heightening the risk of accidental escalation and conflict.

India has responded to China’s incremental encroachments by strengthening its border infrastructure, enhancing troop deployments, and seeking diplomatic channels to resolve disputes. India has also sought support from the international community, engaging in discussions with like-minded nations that share concerns about China’s assertiveness in the Himalayas.

While the border dispute and overt military conflicts often take centre stage in Sino-Indian relations, there exists another layer of interaction characterized by micro aggressions from China towards India. These subtle, often diplomatic, actions can have significant implications and require a closer examination.

One prominent avenue for China’s micro-aggressions against India is through its economic leverage. China has invested heavily in Belt-and-Road infrastructure projects in Pak- istan-occupied Kashmir, an integral part of India, which challenges India’s sovereignty.
China’s unfounded territorial claims, backed by fake cartographic forays, from the Him- alayas to the South China Sea and other parts of the world such as Russia-China border belie China’s pretentious claims about peaceful coexistence.

The writer is affiliated with the Graduate Program in Diplomacy and International Relations at Norwich University, US. In early November, under the auspices of Osher Institute at Dartmouth College, he is set to give a Zoom public lecture, Our Freedoms and the Age of Artificial Intelligence