Moscow: Institute of the Far East of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2007, 244 p.

The monograph by E. D. Stepanov, a specialist in the history of international relations and border policy of the People's Republic of China (Far East Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences), is one of the few Russian publications that deals with the territorial and border problems of the modern world and the Eurasian continent in relation to modern China. The analysis of problems related to the definition and approval of China's state borders is of practical interest to researchers studying the history of international relations in the Far East, East, Southeast, and South Asia. Since China is Russia's closest neighbor in Asia and the Far East, and it also has the longest border in the world (more than 4,200 km), this book will undoubtedly be of interest to Russian, and especially Far Eastern, readers.

The analysis of the actual border policy of the PRC in the monograph is preceded by a theoretical chapter on the borders of states, territorial and border disputes between them, and the causes of these disputes in the modern historical period. Such a preliminary theoretical excursion should be considered justified, since it facilitates understanding the essence of specific territorial-border problems considered in the monograph.

In the next chapter, E. D. Stepanov dwells in detail on the peculiarities of China's traditional approach to border and territorial issues. It is noted that since the 2nd millennium BC, the idea that the ruler of the country is the ruler of all has been formed and established here.

page 182
peoples inhabiting the Middle Kingdom (the entire world known to the Chinese, as well as China itself). The author draws attention to the fact that in this regard, the Chinese did not attach importance to the establishment of the borders of their state and sometimes even denied the existence of such borders. This was facilitated by a peculiar " tributary (vassal)" system of interaction between China and neighboring peoples, which contained protocol norms, ceremonies and rituals of relations with other countries and representatives of their peoples, according to which the arrival of tributary missions (often trade delegations) to the court of the rulers of China in compliance with the ceremonial established by them was interpreted by Chinese dynastic chroniclers and historians as evidence of dependence or even the belonging of these countries to China, thereby including huge territories of the surrounding world.

The author traces the connection of the "tributary system" with the subsequent territorial claims of China to neighboring states in the XX century. Since the mid-19th century, these territories have been occupied by such colonial powers as England, France, Holland, and Japan. The thesis of China's loss of historical lands (Burma, Vietnam, Thailand and the rest of the Indochina Peninsula, the Himalayan states - Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim, as well as the Himalayan region, Indonesia, Taiwan, Ryukyu, Korea, Mongolia, the Amur Region, Primorye, Sakhalin and a significant part of the territories of the republics of Central Asia) was learned and defended by party leaders The Kuomintang, in particular Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek, and leaders of the Chinese Communist Party-Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. Based on this" theory", Mao Zedong, in an interview with representatives of the Socialist Party of Japan in 1964, stated that " about 100 years ago, the area east of Lake Baikal became the territory of Russia and since then Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, Kamchatka and other points have been the territory of the Soviet Union. We have not yet submitted invoices for this register" (However, 2.09.1964). With an area of modern China of 9.6 million square meters. The total area of territories" lost " by Beijing was estimated by various Chinese authors in the Kuomintang and post-Kuomintang periods from 4 to 10.5 million square kilometers (p. 36).

The monograph pays special attention to the approaches of the Chinese government to territorial and border problems after the Communist Party came to power in the country and the proclamation of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949.

In this connection, E. D. Stepanov examines the history of Mongolia's independence from the Chinese metropolis, as well as the Tibetan issue. As you know, after the victory of the Xinhai Revolution in China (1911) and the overthrow of the foreign Manchu imperial Qing dynasty in the country, Outer Mongolia and Tibet declared their independence, which, however, was not recognized by the international community. De facto, Outer Mongolia and Tibet enjoyed independence, since the first attempts of the Chinese authorities to restore the pre-existing state of affairs (China's suzerainty in these regions) by military force in both cases ended in the defeat of Chinese troops. The question of Mongolia and especially Tibet is of considerable interest to the modern reader, since this topic is poorly studied in the Russian scientific literature. The author consistently introduces readers to the course of these problems, revealing a number of detailed details.

Describing the relations between the PRC and the Republic of China, E. D. Stepanov notes that Taiwan "has a certain territory on which its jurisdiction is exercised, based on the legal norms established by its authorities; it has a fully sovereign power; there are legislative and judicial bodies, as well as an integral system of bodies and institutions" (p. 63). that is, it has all the attributes of an independent state. This is an interesting author's interpretation of the situation around Taiwan.

The monograph is largely devoted to the policy of the leadership of the People's Republic of China on the settlement of border disputes and the legal registration of the borders of China with neighboring countries. In this regard, E. D. Stepanov delves into the history of border problems in relation to each country. This kind of historical digression should be recognized as both necessary and successful, since the number of publications on these two-sided border problems in the Russian specialized literature is only a few units. The author uses little-known foreign sources, introducing them into domestic scientific circulation. The monograph contains a rich factual material on specific, but insufficiently known to the domestic reader, Sino-Burmese and Sino-Indian territorial-border problems.

A special chapter of the book is devoted to the method of "cartographic aggression" used by the Chinese leadership to advance territorial claims to neighboring countries

page 183
in the 1950s and 1970s. It is significant that already in the first years of the PRC's existence, by publishing falsified maps, claims were made to the territory of almost all countries with which China bordered-India, Burma, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Korea, and the USSR. The author examines in detail the change in the "appetites" of Beijing's leaders using these maps. For example, two-thirds of the South China Sea was subjected to the method of "cartographic aggression", reflecting the claims of the PRC leadership to part of the high seas, which clearly contradicts article 2 of the Geneva Conference on the High Seas of 1858 and Articles 87 and 89 of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. view, the absence of any schematized cartographic illustration that clearly explains the territorial claims of the PRC. The abundance of geographical names, most of which are absent even in detailed geographical atlases, leads to the fact that the text seems to "hang" and therefore is perceived with difficulty.

The monograph notes such a characteristic moment as the continuity of China's foreign policy on the territorial issue from Qing to Kuomintang diplomacy, up to the diplomacy of the PRC. Epochs are changing, but the general position and approaches in foreign policy, including its nuances, the size of China's traditional territorial claims in the past, the system of reasoning for them, and negotiating tactics remain the same. E. D. Stepanov draws attention to the crafty wording of the existence of "issues of incomplete border definition left by history". Proclaimed in the report of Premier of the State Council of the People's Republic of China Zhou Enlai at the session of the National People's Congress in 1957, it became firmly established in the everyday life of Chinese diplomacy and in subsequent years was widely used by the Chinese side in relations with neighboring countries, including the USSR, to disguise certain territorial claims. Zhou Enlai's report concluded that "all border and territorial disputes and disputes that exist or may arise between China and neighboring countries are the result of the policies of the imperialist powers, representing issues left behind by history; that they should be resolved on a' fair and rational basis ' "(p.112).

The author writes that "any problem that arose some time ago can be called a question left behind by history", and at the right moment (to distract the attention of the country's population from any conflict problems and situations of internal development), declare the treaty documents on China's borders with neighboring states unequal, and therefore require their radical revision (!), blaming the reanimation of these issues on the activities of the imperialists or on those forces that allegedly inherited the policy of the imperialists. Chinese diplomacy has also used this formula in situations where the leadership disagreed with a previously concluded international legal treaty document on the border.

E. D. Stepanov notes that the appeal of Chinese politicians and scientists to the thesis of "justice and rationality" in solving border-territorial problems conceals the desire to achieve first of all "restoration of historical justice", allegedly violated in the process of forming the territory and borders of the Chinese state, especially after it first came into direct contact with Russia, and then with other Western states, which subjugated the countries adjacent to China. "A fair and rational solution to issues left behind by history and concerning borders and territories implies, first of all, recognition by China's partner of the "injustice" committed against it in the past, as a result of which it lost part of "its" territory, and if not the return to it of at least a purely symbolic part of the "lost territory", then recognition of itself in one form or another, the "territorial debtor" of China" (p.115).

Such a doctrinal approach of Chinese politicians to the issue of borders implied the need for them to seek from their negotiating partners, first, to recognize the "injustice" committed against China in the past, to agree with the Chinese assessment of the legal status of the current borders and the delineation made in the past as "illegitimate", and secondly, to actually review and re-evaluate the legal status of the- re-define state borders to replace existing ones, regardless of their contractual and legal formalization. The author notes that the leaders of the People's Republic of China used unresolved or not fully resolved border issues as a lever of psychological, diplomatic, political and military pressure on neighboring countries in the name of revival in one form or another

page 184
"world order in Chinese" and the creation of a zone of exclusive political influence on the borders of China (p. 117).

A special chapter of the monograph is devoted to the Sino-Indian border conflict of 1959-1962. This area of border issues is practically unknown to the Russian reader and is of considerable interest not only for specialists in indology, but also for international political scientists dealing with security issues in Asia, especially in the relations between its two giants-China and India. Here, E. D. Stepanov introduces extensive factual, historical and legal material on Sino-Indian relations into scientific circulation. Noteworthy is China's tactics in negotiations with India, which later became known as a" comprehensive deal " and was reduced to exchanging one area of Indian territory claimed by China for another area of Indian territory, to which China also put forward its claims. It is very interesting that Chinese diplomacy later used a similar scheme for "settling" border and territorial issues in negotiations on similar problems with Burma and Russia (islands on the Argun and Amur Rivers).

The author also paid attention to the concept of "unequal treaties", developed by the Chinese leadership since the late 1910s, according to which all treaties concluded by European powers with old China are considered a priori as having an unequal character. E. D. Stepanov draws attention to the need to take into account the historical conditions in which so-called unequal treaties were concluded with old China. China, since the treaty relations of States in the past were based on the rules, principles, customs and legal norms that existed at the time when they were concluded.

The concept of Russia's "territorial debt" to China was formulated precisely at the border consultations of 1964, and the Chinese side insisted that the text of the agreement include a provision on recognizing the Russo-Chinese treaties of the XIX-XX centuries as "unequal", imposed on China by tsarist Russia (p. 168). The author notes that the official recognition of the Russian-Chinese treaties of the XIX-XX centuries The fact that the territorial-border agreements between Russia and China are unequal from the point of view of modern international law would automatically make them illegitimate. The subsequent statement by the Chairman of the CPC Central Committee, Mao Zedong, on July 10, 1964, about an undeclared" register " for the territorial account, raised the question of the existence of slightly veiled territorial claims of China to the Soviet Union. Chinese politicians and diplomats have practically succeeded, under the threat of making broader border claims against the USSR, in imposing their line on the negotiations, dragging it (and then Russia) into an unprofitable discussion about the border, which was long ago formalized in the existing and indefinite Russo-Chinese treaties. The concept of "unequal contracts", according to Ye. D. Stepanova, was aimed at "one way or another forcing the partner to recognize that injustice was committed against China in the past, and therefore both the legitimacy of the border establishment carried out in the past and the legal status of the border itself are questionable, and therefore this whole" question left by history " requires a new one decisions "on a fair and rational basis", i.e. redefinition of boundaries " (p. 171).

A separate chapter of the monograph is devoted to the disputed ownership of island territories, exclusive economic zones, and continental shelves in the Yellow, East China, and South China Seas. It is full of extensive factual material. These issues are commented on in it with the involvement of the norms of international maritime law. The issue of China's claims to small island territories (the Senkaku Islands, the Paracel Islands and the Spratly Archipelago), as well as the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf in these seas is of interest to specialists.

The monograph pays much attention to Soviet - and Russian-Chinese relations on the border issue. E. D. Stepanov rightly draws attention to the illegality of the Chinese side's claims to islands on the border rivers Argun, Amur, Ussuri and Sungacha. So, "if we talk about the ownership of islands on the Ussuri and Amur rivers, then... according to... [with a map with a red line attached to the Beijing Supplementary Treaty of 1860], they were, strictly speaking, outside Chinese territory." Touching upon the controversial aspects of the Supplementary Agreement between the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China on the Russian-Chinese Border of 2004, under which Tarabarov Island and a significant part of Bolshoy Us Island were transferred to China-

page 185
Suriysky in the Khabarovsk region (a total of 337 square kilometers of Russian territory), the author notes that the location of the border sign " E "" indicated that when establishing and then setting the border on the ground, they assumed that the mouth of the Ussuri is not located at the Khabarovsk military post.., but at its confluence with the southern arm of the Amur which is now called the Kazakevich Channel, and the border, therefore, runs along this channel" (p. 229).

Taking an objective approach to the Supplementary Agreement on the Russian-Chinese Border concluded in October 2004, Stepanov draws attention to the fact that the principle of "50-50" in the division of disputed territories was applied to determine the border only in those areas claimed by the Chinese side, but which were under the jurisdiction of China's partner, that is, in the case of the Russia. This resulted in an equal division of the disputed areas between the parties in principle, but "in fact, it is based on the cession to China and the transfer to it of a part of the territory that previously did not belong to it" (p.234). We are talking about the Amur River (hundreds of square kilometers of island territories), Argun, Ussuri and Sungacha rivers, a section of Russian territory near Lake Khasan.

Refuting the opinion spread at one time by senior officials of the Russian Foreign Ministry and official Russian mass media, including on the Internet on the website of the Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation, regarding the border on two river sections-in the Khabarovsk region at the confluence of the Amur and Ussuri Rivers (Tarabarov and Bolshoy Ussuriysky Islands) and on the Argun River (Ostrov Bolshoy) - and the division of the islands located here, that "from a legal point of view, these islands were no man's land, and the issue of the border with China was supposedly never settled at all," the author frankly and directly writes: "The above documents clearly show that the Russian-Chinese border was clearly defined in the past and that the three disputed islands belong to Russia. This is also shown on the map attached to the Treaty of Peking in 1860.... In other words, the 2004 supplementary agreement is essentially a unilateral territorial cession of Russia to China" (p. 234).

The general disadvantage of the monograph, in my opinion, is a somewhat chaotic presentation of the material on the analyzed issues. The same issues on bilateral disputes over the borders of the PRC with neighboring states are repeatedly discussed again in almost all chapters, and textual repetitions also occur, which indicates that the layout of the material is not sufficiently successful. However, these circumstances do not reduce the scientific and practical value of the reviewed monograph. The book belongs to a single publication on a topical issue of modern international relations-territorial disputes in Asia. It is of interest not only for a narrow circle of specialists-Sinologists and international experts, but also for a wide range of readers.

Permanent link to this publication: