Chinese warships in Burmese port worries Indians

Chinese navy officers aboard the Guangzhou at Thilwa Port

Two warships from China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) docked on Sunday 29th August at Thilawa Port near Rangoon, Burma. It was the first time Chinese naval warships have visited Burma in their 60-year relationship, and is being viewed as a statement of intent to exert control over the Indian Ocean.

Chinese media has reported that the warships were sent with the aim of promoting friendly relations with the Burmese navy. While Burma has long been a rogue state in the eyes of the West, China is the junta's key ally, investor and trading partner. In November 2009, China began construction of a pipeline across Burma and has been involved in the development of hydro power. China has also sold Burma arms and has been able to shield it from UN sanctions as a result of its permanent member status on the UN Security Council. In return, China has secured access to raw materials from Burma, such as teak and gems.

A key factor of their relationship, however, is China's desire for access to the Indian Ocean. A 2009 report by Chinese scholars Li Chenyang and Ley Liang Fook said:

“China wants to shift from a one-ocean state to a safer and more stable two-ocean state to enhance its security. Hence, a core objective of China's policy towards Myanmar [Burma] is to establish a strategic network of road, rail and air transport from Yunnan Province in the southwest through Myanmar to the Indian Ocean and also to construct water, oil and gas pipelines.”

While Indian and China have a 3,500km-long disputed Himalayan border, it is possible that in the future the flashpoint for disputes between the two Asian heavyweights will be the Indian Ocean. Both countries have been raising the international profile of their navies, for example, in fighting pirates off the coast of Somalia. But China has been the more aggressive country in using its navy for diplomatic purposes, such as last week's visit to Burma. According to US Navy Commander Steven L. Horrell, the US Navy, India and China are all competing for influence in the Indian Ocean, to protect their strategic interests. He insists, however that China's moves are "not incompatible with a peaceful rise."

In recent years, China has expanded its port facilities in countries that border India, including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Burma, but while it should be noted that the ports are commercial structures, not naval bases, Indian strategists have nonetheless refered to the projects as a 'string of pearls' encircling India in its strategic back yard. The Indian Ocean has been described as the 'Silk Road of the 21st century', moving Gulf oil and African minerals to the world's two most populous nations.

The visit of the Chinese navy to Burma comes a time of already heightened tension between China and India; Beijing recently denied a visa to Indian Lt. Gen. B.S. Jaswal because he oversaw Army operations in Indian-controlled Kashmir, and an Indian newspaper reported on Saturday 28th August that India had responded by suspending military exchanges. Chinese media sources have said they are unaware of any change in relations, and the Indian government has refused to comment.

The Indian Ocean's role as a key shipping route is only going to increase as the Chinese spread their investing power around the world. How India react to China's actions could be of crucial importance to not only the region, but the world.
Sources: Yahoo news, The Irrawaddy, The Bangkok Post

Google in trouble again over Kashmir map

Given the prevalence of disputed borders around the world, the task of mapping the world is fraught with difficulties. Google Maps, a theoretically objective service, often find themselves caught in political disputes between nations, and there is often no clear 'right' answer on where to mark the border.

Mapping India's borders has been one of the company's biggest challenges. The issue first emerged in 2005, when Google's political map of the subcontinent had a clearly defined boundary between India and Pakistan, with Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK) on the Pakistani side of the border. Political remonstrations resulted in Google marking the border as disputed. The issue flared up again on 21st August when Indian authorities announced that Google Maps had 'given' POK back to Pakistan. Indian officials threatened Google with legal action if a change was not made immediately.

"Any wrongful depiction of Indian map and its boundaries is liable for action under the India Information Technology Act. Google has been asked to immediately correct this inaccuracy," Minister of state for telecom and IT Sachin Pilot said. Google has said that the responsible department has rectified the maps.

Google has faced issues in India before, when in 2009, Google's satellite maps showed parts of Arunachal Pradesh as Chinese territory, labeled with Chinese script. China claims parts of Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet, while India claims it in its entirety.

One solution Google has used in the past has been to depict maps differently for local versions. The Chinese version of Google Maps for example shows parts of Arunachal Pradesh as inside China's borders. Similarly, the Indian version depicts the state as part of India. The global version of Google Maps shows Arunachal Pradesh as disputed territory through using broken lines on the map.

Further disputes include the placement of the border between Thailand and Cambodia, with Cambodia complaining that the map ceded territory to Thailand. Thailand and Cambodia have a longstanding dispute over an 11th century Hindu temple called Preah Vihear. Despite an International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling in 1962 in favour of Cambodia, disputes have remained because the area around the temple was not covered. The two countries came close to dispute this summer over new site management plans submitted to UNESCO by Cambodia; in particular, a 4.6sq km area at the base of the temple is under continued dispute. Cambodia argued that the Google map put half of the temple in Thai territory.

Even countries which have resolved their border disputes have had issues with Google Maps. In March 2010, Vietnam claimed that Google had misrepresented their border with China, situating it a few kilometers south of the agreed line.

Tensions remain, but Thailand and Cambodia look for diplomatic solution to temple dispute

In recent weeks, tension between Thailand and Cambodia over the 11th century Preah Vihear Hindu temple – after which one of Cambodia's northern provinces is named - on their border has heated up to near breaking point, but military conflict seems to be a less likely option now as both countries have committed themselves to a diplomatic solution.

Tension has existed over the temple for many years, despite a 1962 International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling that the temple was in Cambodian territory. The ruling did not, however, include the adjacent land where access to the temple largely lies, and which Thailand insists is its own territory.

Thailand sought to have the countries jointly seek World Heritage status for the site, based on a 2000 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). However the then Thai Foreign Minister, Noppadon Pattama, was forced to resign in 2008 after it emerged that he had signed a joint communiqué with Cambodia in breach of the Thai constitution. This opened the way for Cambodia to make a separate application for World Heritage Site status which was granted in July 2008. Border skirmishes between the two countries broke out soon afterwards.

The issue re-emerged in late July 2010 when Cambodia moved to submit a new management plan for the temple and 4.6 sq km of adjacent land during UNESCO's World Heritage Committee meeting in Brazil. The Thai delegation, led by Natural Resources and Environment Minister Suwit Khunkitti, attended the forum to lobby against the plan, and argued that the committee should not consider the plan until Thailand and Cambodia have agreed on a demarcation line. Thailand fears that acceptance of the Cambodian management plan would result in a buffer zone being created around the temple, and on 29th July, Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said that his country would withdraw from UNESCO if the committee accepted the Cambodian plan.

UNESCO agreed to delay making a decision on the plan until the next World Heritage Committee meeting, due to be held in Bahrain in 2011. This failed to resolve the tension however, with both countries accusing the other of military threats. Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen wrote to the UN accusing Thailand of threatening to use military force, while Thai troops on the border have reported Cambodian troop movements. Cambodian officials have requested mediation from both UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Vietnam, which is the current chair of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), but Thailand has said it is a bilateral issue that does not require third-party intervention. Vejjajiva has, however, set up talks with Ban in an effort to ensure that the Secretary-General understands the Thai position before his scheduled visit to Cambodia on 27th October.

Domestic political issue in Thailand have also contributed to the dispute, because the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), which is in alliance with Vejjajiva's Democrat Party, led the 28th July protest at UNESCO's Bangkok office. This was in defiance of the emergency decree prohibiting political gatherings that were put in place after political violence in the spring. The group wants Thailand to cancel the 2000 MoU which it claims put Thailand at a disadvantage.

While both sides now agree that diplomatic solutions can be found, Cambodia has postponed a General Border Committee meeting that was due to be held on 27th August, citing tension as the cause.

Thailand, however, has continued to push for a new meeting of the Joint Boundary Commission, to prevent international interference in the dispute. Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Hor Namhong met with ASEAN General Secretary Surin Pitsuwan in Phnom Penh on 16th August, but Thailand declined to send a representative, arguing that the dispute should not be raised to a regional level.

The Preah Vihear temple is only one issue in the long-running border dispute between the neighbouring countries. The maritime dispute – resulting in the 27,000 sq kms Overlapping Claims Area (OCA) – has been in force majeure for decades and has prevented any exploration in the seemingly oil-rich area.

Menas Borders has undertaken detailed analysis of the Thailand-Cambodia maritime dispute. For further details please contact info@menasborders.com

Sources: MCOT, MCOT 2, Bangkok Post, Bangkok Post 2, Voice of America

China, Japan hold treaty talks on gas exploration rights in the East China Sea

Japan and China held the first round of talks in Tokyo on 27th July aimed at signing a treaty over joint gas field development in the East China Sea. The two sides had agreed to hold gas treaty talks when officials met in Hanoi last week as part of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) meetings.

Akitaka Saiki, director general of the Japanese Foreign Ministry's Asian and Ocean Affairs Bureau, and Ning Fukui, director general of the Chinese Foreign Ministry's Boundary and Ocean Affairs Department, attended the meeting to discuss the treaty, which is expected to reflect a 2008 bilateral accord.

The accord was designed to resolve a row over gas exploration, and the two countries agreed to drill jointly for oil and gas in the north of the East China Sea. The two countries agreed to jointly tap an area near the gas field known as Longjing in China and Asunaro in Japan; Japan would also invest in the development of the Shirakaba gas field, known as Chunxiao in China.

Talks between the two nations since the June 2008 agreement have been stalled however, with Japan accusing China of beginning unilateral operations of the Chinese side of the median line.

The dispute over ownership of the area originated when it was discovered that part of an undersea natural gas field lay within the Chinese Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), but part of it lay within a disputed EEZ between Japan and China.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, China claims the disputed ocean territory as its own EEZ, due to it being part of the PRC’s natural extension of its continental shelf. Japan, however, claims the disputed territory because it is within 200 nautical miles of Japan’s coast.

The Chunxiao gas field established by China in 2003 is clearly within the Chinese side of the EEZ boundary, but Japan argues that they may tap into a field that stretches into the disputed area.

The 2008 agreement was meant to settle the dispute, and the renewed talks appear to be a positive sign. Additionally, in Hanoi, both states’ foreign ministers expressed their satisfaction at the state of China-Japan relations.

Sources: The Mainichi Daily News, Zee News

For the full text of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, please see the menas borders eLibrary

Canada, US hold secret meetings on Beaufort Sea dispute

Icebreakers Healy and Louis S. St-Laurent in the Beaufort Sea in 2009

Canadian and U.S. government experts met quietly in Ottawa last week to begin trying to resolve a long-standing boundary dispute in the Beaufort Sea, a Canadian diplomat revealed Monday.

News of the surprise talks was disclosed during a briefing by Canadian and U.S. officials on a bi-national seabed mapping mission to be conducted next month in the Beaufort region.

The Ottawa talks on the Beaufort controversy, held July 22, followed a pledge earlier this year by Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon that Canada intends to actively pursue an agreement with the U.S. over where the maritime boundary should be drawn in an unresolved, Lake Ontario-sized section of the Arctic Ocean north of the Yukon-Alaska border.

This summer's joint Canada-U.S. survey, the third consecutive year in which researchers from the two countries have agreed to collaborate on mapping the Beaufort Sea floor, will also include a sonar probe of the contested area itself for the first time.

Beginning Aug. 2, scientists aboard the U.S. Coast Guard cutter Healy and the Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Louis S. St-Laurent will co-operate in a 42-day mission aimed at generating seabed data across a wide swath of the southern, central and northern Beaufort Sea.

The information is intended to help the two countries prepare their respective claims under a United Nations (UN) treaty for extended authority over submerged territory as well as potential petroleum deposits and other seabed resources. Canada 's submission to the UN agency on continental shelves, the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), is due in 2013.

To secure extensions to their authority over extended stretches of undersea territory, countries must prove that clear geological connections exist between the continental mainland and adjacent stretches of sea floor.

Historically, the key area of dispute was a triangle-shaped, 21,500-sq.-km section of the Beaufort Sea close to the Yukon-Alaska shore. But the joint Canada-U.S. seabed surveys in 2008 and 2009 showed each country's claims could extend much farther toward the North Pole than previously imagined, doubling or even tripling the ultimate size of the dispute zone once continental shelf submissions are made.

The two countries have disagreed since the 1970s over where to draw the ocean border. It is a conflict that flares whenever fisheries management, oil-and-gas exploration or other resource development issues arise in the region.

Canada 's position is based on an 1825 treaty between Russian and Britain that was transferred to the U.S. and Canada when the two countries acquired Alaska and the Yukon respectively in the latter half of the 19th century.

That treaty suggests the Beaufort Sea maritime boundary is an extension of the arrow-straight land border between Yukon and Alaska, which follows the 141st meridian.

The U.S. argues the offshore boundary is defined by an "equidistance" principle: The demarcation line at any point is drawn halfway between each country's nearest stretch of coastline.

But because the two countries are working to expand their seabed domains in the central and northern Beaufort — also potential petroleum targets — an area much larger than the traditional dispute zone is coming into play.

Under the U.S. formula for determining the maritime boundary, the looming presence of Canada's Banks Island on the Beaufort's eastern side radically alters where the border between the two countries would be drawn in areas farther out to sea.

According to the U.S. position, Alaska's northward-sloping coastline means the sea's southern maritime boundary veers slightly eastward of the Yukon-Alaska land boundary, giving the U.S. a greater amount of marine jurisdiction.

But the overlap in the northerly expanse of the Beaufort would be much larger and reversed, with the boundary under the U.S. formula swinging far to the west because of Banks Island, giving Canada a greater share of the potentially resource-rich seabed.

Meanwhile, Canada's longitude-line formula for determining the boundary would give the U.S. more seabed territory in the outer Beaufort.

Source: Vancouver Sun

For the full text of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, please see the menas borders eLibrary

China, Vietnam reach border agreement

Thanh Thuy Border Gate

Three bilateral agreements on borders and landmarks between Vietnam and China took effect on Wednesday 14th July, eight months after they were signed. The accords include a Protocol on Border Demarcation and Marker Planting, an Agreement on Border Management Regulations and an Agreement on Border Gates and Border Management Regulations.

Vietnamese Deputy Foreign Minister Ho Xuan Son said "These legal documents have officially ended a 36-year land border settlement process between Viet Nam and China," during a ceremony to honour the agreements at the Thanh Thuy border gate between Vietnamese province Ha Giang and Chinese province Yunnan.

Vietnam and China share a 1,450km-long border, including 384,000km of rivers and streams. On 27th December 2001, the first border marker was installed at the Mong Cai border post between Vietnam and Dongxing, China, following a 1999 treaty on land borders between the two countries. By 31st December, 2008 the border demarcation was declared complete; in total 1971 marker posts had been installed, including one that accords with a Vietnam-Laos-China agreement.

The history of conflict between China and Vietnam predates Western interference. Vietnam was a tributary of the China’s Qing dynasty, until the French invaded in 1858, and by the 1890s Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos were all French colonies. The Japanese occupied Vietnam during the Second World War after which the Viet Minh fought the French for Vietnam’s independence. China was involved with both sides: Mao Zedong's communist CCP backed the Viet Minh, while Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang nationalists whom the Communists eventually defeated in 1949, backed the French restoration. After the decisive 1954 battle of Dien Bien Phu, when the French were comprehensively defeated by the Viet Minh, they quickly left Vietnam and the July 1954 Geneva Accords divided the country into North and South Vietnam.

Throughout the second Vietnam War which began in 1959 between the Viet Minh and the US backed South Vietnamese, both the Chinese and the Soviet Union supported the North, despite the fact that relations between the Chinese and Soviets had soured since the late 1950s. The North Vietnamese drifted towards the Soviet Union throughout the 1960s, and relations deteriorated between Vietnam and China further in the 1970s, especially as the latter reoriented its foreign policy towards the USA.

Conflict broke out between the two countries in 1979 over Vietnam’s role in Cambodia. Vietnam had invaded Cambodia in late 1978 in order to remove the virulently anti-Vietnamese Khmer Rouge, who were demanding land from Vietnam and massacring ethnic Vietnamese in Cambodia. China was supporting the Khmer Rouge and therefore invaded North Vietnam in February 1979 in an effort to force Vietnam to withdraw from Cambodia, although the official explanation had more to do with the disputed Spratly Islands. The Chinese forces got as far as Hanoi before withdrawing, conducting a ‘scorched-earth’ campaign in the north on their way out, but both countries claimed victory because Vietnam was not forced to alter its plans in Cambodia.

Border skirmishes continued through the 1980s and a naval conflict occurred in 1988 over the Spratly Islands. The conflict ended in 1989, when Vietnam withdrew from Cambodia, but it took another 10 years before a treaty was signed designating a border, which remained secret.

The ceremony on 14th July 2010 marked the culmination of moves towards cooperation, and the two countries have agreed to establish a Vietnam-China Joint Committee on Land Border to manage the border. The construction of a highway between Vietnam’s capital of Hanoi and Kunming, which is the capital of Yunnan province, is underway.

The ownership of the hundreds of Spratly Islands and other parts of the South China Sea is still disputed between Vietnam, China, and other countries in the region. While the islands themselves are uninhabited, it is thought that the region may contain large reserves of oil and gas although this has not yet been proven.

Sources: Asia News Network, Thanh Nien News

Eighteen cooperation agreements, memos of understanding, executive programs and protocols were signed on Sunday 18th July between Syria and Lebanon at the end of the Syrian-Lebanese Follow-up and Coordination Commission meeting held in Damascus.

On his fourth visit to Syria since taking office in 2009, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri urged closer bilateral ties as did his Syrian counterpart Niji Otari.

A top issue between the two countries remains the border demarcation. After diplomatic relations were re-established in 2008, Syria agreed to establish a joint committee with Lebanon to demarcate the border, two years after United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 recommended that Syria address the issue.

Since then, however, progress has stalled, with Damascus claiming it was busy finishing the border demarcation with Jordan and that the continued presence of Israelis in the Sheb’aa Farms area complicated any demarcation.

Confusion over the Lebanon-Syria border has existed since the two countries achieved independence from France after the Second World War. No official agreement on the 365km long border has ever been reached, and the internationally recognised border is still that from the French Mandate in 1920.
Although a joint border committee was established in the 1950s and presented its conclusions in 1964, neither country took the findings to the United Nations to have new international maps established.

Syrian military and civilian presence has been a prolonged issue in Lebanon: a year after civil war broke out in Lebanon in 1975, Syrian troops entered the country. While their presence was initially part of an Arab peacekeeping force it eventually became a 29 year occupation.

Civil conflict continued far beyond the Taif Accord which officially ended the conflict in 1989 and during the occupation, Palestinian militias such as Hezbollah, established themselves in Lebanon, with Syrian approval.

In September 2004, the UN issued Security Council Resolution 1559, which called on the Government of Lebanon to exert control over all Lebanese territory, and reiterating previous resolutions, and declared its strong support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon. It also called for the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces from Lebanon.

On 14th February 2005, Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri – who was the father of the current Prime Minister Saad Hariri - was assassinated, prompting protests in Beirut calling for Syria to withdraw. By late April 2005, Damascus announced that all of its troops had been withdrawn from Lebanese territory, which the UN confirmed in late May.

After the July-August 2006 conflict between Israel and Lebanon, the UN Security Council issued Resolution 1701, which called upon the Government of Lebanon to secure its borders and recommended that Syria address the issue with Lebanon.

There are still 17 non-delineated sectors along the common border winding through valleys or rivers and despite Syrian insistence that it has withdrawn, large sections of Lebanese territory is likely still under de facto Syrian military and civilian control.

Following Noble Energy’s extensive offshore gas discoveries in Israeli waters there is considerable interest from the IOCs in the prospects for further discoveries in both Lebanese and Syrian waters. Noble’s Tamar field may contain 6 trillion cubic feet of gas, while the Leviathan block may contain 16 trillion cubic feet. Given that the terminus of the land boundary determines the precise direction of the maritime boundary, the formal settlement of the land border is an essential pre-requisite before the maritime area can be delineated.

Sources: SANA, All Lebanon, Bloomberg

menas borders has extensive experience in the Middle East. For more information on our consultancy services, please visit http://www.menasborders.com/