Or can national boundaries be drawn in straight vertical lines or straight horizontal lines? Would straight lines drawn on a map, a flat piece of paper using rulers more legitimate? Where got such things, national boundaries cannot be straight lines lah. Straight lines are like the 9 dash lines, simplistic geometrical lines, not natural, cannot be like that one.
Has any of the boys and girls seen the maps of African or Middle Eastern states that were drawn up by the colonialists? Anyone bother to look at the borders of Libya and Egypt and many other African states, yes, they are straight lines, drawn conveniently by the colonial masters, with rulers on a map on the table. That was the reality of the time.
Times changed, the development of pens and papers did not happen over night, did not exist in the beginning of civilizations. The ancient people cut marks on pieces of woods, on stones, on tortoise shells as official documents then. Many ‘books, maps and documents’ were done in those primitive forms.
Not counted? Cannot be like that, must be in thick voluminous books, like what we have in the libraries, or the law journals in the courts of law then got count? You think the bible was written on paper like what you have now, that you can buy them from the bookshops? No, they were written on plant fibres, leaves etc.
Now, what is so different between China drawing 9 dash lines on the map and the straight lines drawn by the colonial masters as national boundaries in Africa? Do you know how the British and the Dutch divided the region up as their colonies? They drew lines on the maps then, like the 9 dash lines.
The European colonialists cheated the natives of the land they conquered by asking for documentary proof of ownership of their land. The colonialists demanded signed legal documents. What do you think the natives showed the British the Europeans? Signed documents like those printed in London, or pieces of barks or wood or stones?
The world yesterday was not like the world today.