China says 1890 treaty backs claim to Doklam plateau at tri-junction

Beijing claims around 89 sq km of the Doklam plateau south of where India sees the China-Bhutan border.

 

Highlights

• 1

  Beijing claims around 89 sq km of the Doklam plateau.
• 2

  It is here that China is constructing a road.
• 3

  It triggered opposition from the Royal Bhutan Army and India.

China has pointed to an 1890 treaty between Sikkim and Tibet - which India largely affirms to mark much of the India-China border in Sikkim - to buttress its claims to the Doklam plateau at the tri-junction.

And it appears Beijing has been stepping up its claims to the area -leading to its road construction that triggered the current stand-off - since around 2002, when it presented Bhutan with "archival documentary evidence" that claimed it was receiving "a herding tax" from Bhutanese in the area even until 1960.

China fixes the India-China-Bhutan tri-junction at Mount Gipmochi, which lies south to where India and Bhutan say the tri-junction lies, near Batang La. Beijing on Friday released a map showing its claims.

China says the 1890 treaty similarly marks the border at Mount Gipmochi. Hence, Beijing claims around 89 sq km of the Doklam plateau south of where India sees the China-Bhutan border. It is here that China is constructing a road, which triggered opposition from the Royal Bhutan Army and also India, which worries that this will bring China even closer in the sensitive Chumbi valley.

CHINA'S CLAIMS ON SOLID GROUNDS

China believes its claims are on solid ground according to the 1890 Sikkim-Tibet Convention, which explains its unusually frequent public statements reaffirming its stand in recent days.

Article 1 of the Convention, signed at Calcutta on March 17, 1890 by Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, then Viceroy of India, and Sheng Tai, the Imperial Associate Resident in Tibet, reads: "The boundary of Sikkim and Tibet shall be the crest of the mountain range separating the waters flowing into the Sikkim Teesta and its affluents from the waters flowing into the Tibetan Mochu and northwards into other rivers of Tibet. The line commences at Mount Gipmochi, on the Bhutan frontier, and follows the above-mentioned water-parting to the point where it meets Nipal territory [sic]."

The Chinese Foreign Ministry on Friday pointed to this treaty, saying: "In terms of jurisprudence, the boundary convention signed in 1890 explicitly stipulates that Mount Gipmochi is the junction of China, India and Bhutan, and Doklam is situated on the Chinese side of the China-India and China-Bhutan boundaries."

AMICABLE RESOLUTION FAR-OFF DREAM

The Foreign Ministry said: "Before the 1960s, if border inhabitants of Bhutan wanted to herd in Doklam, they needed the consent of the Chinese side and had to pay the grass tax to China. Nowadays, the Tibet Archives still retain some receipts of the grass tax. The Qing government's high commissioner in Tibet once erected a landmark on the China-Bhutan traditional customary line to the South of Doklam."

While China and Bhutan have had many rounds of border talks, it appears China's claims here became a sticking point in 2002.  That year, then Bhutanese Foreign Minister Lyonpo Jigmi Thinley told the National Assembly China had "claimed to have documentary evidence on the ownership of the disputed tracts of land. When Bhutan asked them to be generous with a small neighbour like Bhutan they said that, as a nation which shared its border with 25 other countries they could not afford to be generous with one particular neighbour. The Chinese government, including the Prime Minister, were unhappy and questioned why Bhutan was raising new issues after many years of talks".

Bhutan has pointed to a 1998 agreement with China which says both sides, pending a final settlement of their boundary dispute, will not "alter the status quo" in any disputed area. Now, it seems Beijing is making the argument that there was no dispute in this area to begin with, which is going to make it all the more challenging to arrive at an amicable resolution to the stand-off.