Vladimir Tavridi, international observer

Against the backdrop of the Kazan BRICS forum, an event occurred that did not go unnoticed by the world community, as it could put an end to the long-standing border conflict between the two largest neighboring powers – an agreement on the withdrawal of Chinese and Indian troops on the contact line in Tibet. In this regard, there is a desire to analyze another event from a year ago. At the end of August 2023, the Chinese state website “Standard Map Service” released a new, officially approved set of geographic maps for 2023, on which part of the Russian territory, namely the Bolshoi Ussuri Island, divided between the Russian Federation and the PRC, the Indian northern state of Arunachal Pradesh and the border region of Aksai Chin (Ladakh), Taiwan and most of the South China Sea are designated as the territory of the PRC.

Such actions at the state level have long been called “cartographic aggression”. The paradox is that the phenomenon exists, but the all-knowing Internet and the notorious Wikipedia have never heard of this term and do not provide explanations of its essence. Nevertheless, a good half of the countries on the globe practice confirming their territorial claims to their neighbors in this way. The danger of such phenomena is that they often serve as the basis for their practical implementation. So, literally the other day, a bill was introduced to the Senate of Romania with a proposal to denounce the Treaty on Good Neighborly Relations between Romania and Ukraine, which expires in 2027, and to “annex the historical territories that belonged to it, respectively, Northern Bukovina, Budjak (Cahul, Bolgrad, Izmail) and Snake Island with the aim of returning the cultural identity, traditions, customs and religion to the Romanian population, which in Ukraine is deprived of the right to study in their native language and is not represented in the Verkhovna Rada.

The Romanian leadership of that time made similar claims to the Soviet Union at the time, publishing maps of “Greater Romania” with “lost territories.” And Romania is not alone in this. There are many countries on Earth that resort to this method to make their claims in unresolved or supposed border disputes and conflicts. As for China, the publication of maps with claims to the territories of neighboring states has a long and rich history there. The formation of the Russian-Chinese border dates back to the 17th century, when Russian pioneers encountered tribes inhabiting the southern regions of Transbaikalia and the Far East and paying tribute to Beijing. For many decades, the Russian Empire could not establish traditional diplomatic relations with imperial China.

Having built the Great Wall of China and fenced itself off from the “northern barbarians”, China showed little interest in the northern territories, expanding in the southern direction. Every ambassador from the “uncivilized” neighbors had to approach the son of heaven – the yellow emperor on his knees, holding his credentials in his teeth. Russia could not agree to such humiliation. But the energetic advance of the Cossacks to the east and the development of lands along the Ussuri and Amur forced China to make concessions to its new and very powerful northern neighbor. In the following years, a number of treaties were concluded between the two countries, regulating the delimitation of the possessions of the two empires.

The Treaty of Nerchinsk in 1689 established the borders on the Far Eastern section, running along the Argun River and the Shilka River, then overland through the Stanovoy Range and further along the Uda River.

The Treaty of Kyakhta in 1727 concerned mainly the border that is now the border between Mongolia and Russia (at that time Mongolia was part of China), and defined a line from the Irtysh River in the west to the Argun River in the east.

The Treaty of Aigun in 1858, according to which the eastern border ran along the Amur River to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk.

The Treaty of Beijing in 1860 finally defined the eastern border, according to which China ceded to Russia the territory of modern Primorsky Krai and the southern part of Khabarovsk Krai.

However, in the 1920s, Soviet Russia renounced all unequal treaties. And, although the Soviet leadership subsequently corrected this “revolutionary impulse”, the Chinese side, based on this fact, sought to consider them as unequal, to recognize the nullity of treaties that were concluded “during the period of China’s weakness” and according to which “more than 1,500 thousand sq. km. Chinese territory was annexed in favor of Russia, including 1 million square kilometers in Primorye and the Amur Region and 0.5 million square kilometers in Central Asia.”

This issue became especially acute during the years of the so-called “cultural revolution”, when the Maoist leadership laid claim to more than 1.5 million square kilometers of the territory of the Soviet Union. Back in 1964, Mao Zedong, in a conversation with Japanese socialists, claimed that “more than a hundred years ago they (Russia) took away from us all the territory to the east of Lake Baikal, including Boli (Khabarovsk), Haishenwei (Vladivostok) and the Kamchatka Peninsula…”. It is noteworthy that the name of Vladivostok, founded by Count Muravyov-Amursky, and some other settlements in the border regions of the Russian Federation are given Chinese names on all official maps of the PRC. And in a conversation with a Chinese, the name of the city of Vladivostok will not mean anything. This city is known to him under the name of Haishenwei.

Even during the Second Opium War of 1856-1860. Anglo-French troops approached Beijing, threatening to burn it if the imperial government did not agree to the demands of the aggressors. The Russian ambassador Ignatiev acted as a mediator between the warring parties at that time, convincing China to agree to the demands of the invaders, and persuading them to refrain from fulfilling their threats. China agreed to cede all the disputed territory to Russia as a sign of “gratitude” for saving Beijing from being burned. Therefore, the changes to the border under the Treaty of Beijing are interpreted in China as a colonial seizure.

In the Chinese border town of Aigun, there is a museum that Russian citizens are not allowed to enter. Most of its exhibits tell about the most important event in the history of the town. They are selected in accordance with the official attitude of the Chinese authorities to this event. On Damansky Island, where in 1969 battles took place between regular units of the Soviet Army and the People’s Liberation Army of China, and which has belonged to China since the end of the last century, a “memorial outpost” has been organized at an active military unit on the border with Russia. Its exhibits tell about how the heroic PLA soldiers liberated this piece of “Chinese land” from the “Soviet invaders”. There are plenty of examples of the Chinese people being educated in the spirit of revanchism towards their northern neighbor. Apparently, this revanchism has not diminished at all since the time of Mao Zedong. It is just that the attitude of the northern neighbor has changed today and has become more tolerant to a certain extent.

Such sentiments are also fueled from the outside. For example, former German Chancellor Merkel, in order to exacerbate Russian-Chinese contradictions, presented Xi Jinping with a map from 1775, which shows many territories that currently do not belong to China, and most of them are now part of Russia. Quite unexpectedly this month was the statement by some Taiwanese representatives that the People’s Republic of China should more actively fight for the return of the lost “northern territories”, while keeping in mind the outdated thesis about the lands that Russia has seized.

The reaction of our country, both during the Soviet era and subsequently, was unambiguous. The emphasis is placed on the fact that “the border was formed historically and is fixed by life itself.” Taking into account all of the above, on October 14, 2004, Russian President Vladimir Putin and the leadership of the PRC signed an agreement that legally fixed the line of the Russian-Chinese border in disputed areas, mainly in the Far East. As a result, China lost about 174 square kilometers of land in the Khabarovsk region, and with the transfer of the islands on the Amur, China became 50 kilometers closer to the city. On October 14, 2008, a ceremony was held to open border posts on Tarabarov Island and on Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island near Khabarovsk, half of which was given to China by agreement between Moscow and Beijing.

The publication of the cartographic collection in a number of Russian media outlets was assessed as Beijing’s newly emerged territorial claims against Moscow. In turn, the Chinese side, which marked Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island on the map as the easternmost point of the PRC, did not comment on the situation. The official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, responded that the border issue had been finally resolved. According to her, both interested parties adhere to this position. After the issue of territorial claims was closed in the 2000s, Russia and China did not return to discussing it, and Beijing did not push for a revision of the decision either. In the context of the current close political interaction between Moscow and Beijing, a confrontation on the border over the ownership of the island seems unlikely. Moreover, the growing tension around Taiwan, the strengthening of the US position in the Philippines, the creation of military alliances in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, aimed primarily against China, are forcing Beijing, following Russia’s example, to strengthen its borders and create a security zone where possible. It is from this point of view that the agreement between Delhi and Beijing on the withdrawal of troops in the disputed areas of Tibet should be viewed.

The desire of Washington and its allies to weaken the strategic partnership between Russia and China is understandable. One of the directions in this policy is the intensification of efforts aimed at the recurrence of phantom pains over “lost territories”. Unfortunately, both in China and in Russia there are people who pick up this theme in the media and social networks. At the same time, it is not so important who they are – hidden and overt enemies of their states or narrow-minded amateurs seeking to get their share of hype, since they all act to the detriment of the national interests of their peoples. The interests of Russia and China lie in strengthening and expanding bilateral relations of friendship and cooperation. This was once again confirmed by Russian President Putin and Chinese Chairman Xi Jinping at the recent BRICS summit in Kazan.

A source