Moscow: AST; Vostok-Zapad Publ., 2006, 366 p.

In order to understand such a complex issue as the changes on the Russian-Chinese border1 that occurred in 1991-2004, it is sometimes necessary to look at them from the outside, for example, from Japan. The monograph by Professor A. Iwasita, a leading Japanese expert in the field of Soviet-Chinese and Russian-Chinese border problems (Center for Slavic Studies, Hokkaido University), is a Russian translation of the book "4000 Kilometers along the Russian-Chinese Border" (2003), published in Japan. International interest in the book was such that an English translation was published in Hokkaido (2003) and a Chinese translation was published in Beijing (2007).

The monograph contains the results of the author's work for 10 years on the study of relations between Russia and China in border areas, in particular, the problem of border demarcation. The book contains extensive factual material, as it is a systematic account of the author's journey of 4,000 km along the Russian-Chinese border. The large number of cartographic diagrams and photographs included in the work allows the reader to better understand border issues. The main advantage of this book is that its analysis and conclusions are based on unpublished materials and information obtained directly from the border regions of Russia and China.

The book consists of an introduction, five chapters, and a conclusion.

¹ In 2008, the magazine "Vostok (Oriens)" (No. 6) published my review of E. D. Stepanov's book " Politics Begins with the Border. Some issues of the border policy of the PRC in the second half of the XX century" (Moscow, 2007).

In the introductory part - "Behind the scenes of demarcation" - A. Iwasita bluntly writes that in the 1990s and later, the essence of Article 5 of the 1991 "Agreement between the USSR and the PRC on the Eastern Part of the Soviet-Chinese Border", which defined the border line along the main fairway, was clear to Russian residents of the border territories: "The 1991 agreement was not an agreement on the division of some" untouched " lands that have not yet been developed by any of the parties. This is a revision of the" unequal " border line, which the Russian Empire once imposed by force on Qing China under the Aigun, Beijing and other agreements. In other words, the Russians are faced with the fact that as a result of the revision of the real border line... Russia recognizes as Chinese territory many islands (at that time it was about six hundred), which it still called its own " (p. 69).

The Japanese researcher, apparently following the pan-Asian solidarity towards the European-Asian neighbor of China and Japan-Russia, firstly, follows in the wake of the Chinese doctrine of the Mao Zedong period about the "unequal nature" of the Russian-Chinese treaties of the second half of the XIX-beginning of the XX century. "at one time imposed by force on Qing China", and, thirdly, without reference to the alleged "clarification of the border" (official version of the Russian Foreign Ministry for the Russian public) He openly writes about the change in the state border between Russia and China "as a result of the revision of the real border line" in river sections and the transfer of many hundreds of Russian islands to China. The thesis of Russia's forceful establishment of the Russian-Chinese border under the Peking Treaty of 1860 runs through the entire book by A. Iwasita.

In the first chapter, the author begins his "journey" along the Russian-Chinese border from the Khasansky section in the south of Primorsky Krai, where the borders of three countries - Russia, China and Korea - meet and the Tumangan River (Tumenjiang) flows in its lower reaches. Since the 1980s, this area has been considered as an essential element in the creation of the common Economic space of the Sea of Japan and economic cooperation in Northeast Asia through the free entry of the PRC into the Sea of Japan and the development of the Tumangan River basin.

A. Iwasita tells about the history and current situation of this area, draws attention to the location of the last (under the Peking Treaty of 1860) border sign with the letter "T", which "was installed 20 km from the mouth" of Tumangan (p. 91) (in fact, according to the document on the demarcation of the border in 1861, on at a distance of 22 versts, or 23.5 km from the sea mouth), which is reflected in the delimitation map with a red line attached to the Treaty of Peking, and the demarcation map of 1861, on which the border sign with the letter " T " was installed northwest of the northern tip of Lake Khasan. This initial establishment of the border pillar negates China's rights to the 10-square-kilometer area west of Lake Khasan, which it has held since 1886 to the present. At the same time, the author repeatedly says that according to the Beijing Treaty, "Russia forced China to recognize the eastern bank of the Ussuri River as Russian territory" (p.90), and about the need to "return to [China] the lands once ceded to the Russian Empire, no matter how difficult the task may be", etc. (p. 96).

Much attention is paid to the problem of Chinese shipping in the lower reaches of the Tumangan River, the development of the Tumangan region of Northeastern China's Jilin Province using the Sea of Japan as a "window to the world". According to the author, "the most desirable thing for Jilin Province would be to realize the possibility of direct access to the sea from its own, Chinese port", in connection with which it is proposed to "start negotiations on leasing the territory of the mouth of the Tumangan River from Russia "and even" return [to China] three kilometers of the sea coastline " belonging to Russia (p. 98).

A. Iwasita promotes the Chinese project (with the participation of Japanese and South Korean capital) to create the largest international free economic zone in Northeast Asia under the auspices of UNIDO in the" big triangle "of Chongjin (DPRK) - Yanji (PRC) - Vladivostok (RF) with an area of 10 thousand square kilometers or to merge it into a" small triangle " with an area of 1 thousand square kilometers of the cities of Rajin (North Korea), Hunchun (China) and Posyet (Russia). The author notes that the international project "Tumangan" came across the position of the Russian side, who saw in it the cultivation of a competitor to the Primorsky Territory.

The first chapter also analyzes the problem of Chinese immigration, including illegal immigration, to the territory of the Russian Far East, links of immigration with the territorial problem, section "disputed lands" in the area of Lake Khasan, as a result of which up to 300 hectares of Russian territory were transferred to China.

In the second chapter, A. Iwasita continues his "journey" along the Russian-Chinese border from Primorsky Krai along the Ussuri River to the archipelago of river islands (Bolshoy Ussuriysky, Tara-

bars, etc.) located near Khabarovsk. The author focuses on the armed provocation of China during the Mao Zedong period in the area of the Soviet island of Damansky on the Ussuri River in 1969, which ended with the defeat of Chinese troops. However, the Soviet leadership decided not to escalate the conflict and actually stopped defending the island. This fact is used by the author as "proof" of the "validity" of transferring "disputed" island territories on border rivers to China. In this regard, he analyzed the "disputed territories" in the Ussuri River basin and even classified them into four categories.

Then the author dwells on one of the most complex border problems between Russia and China - the Tarabarova and Bolshoy Ussuriysky Islands between the northern and southern branches of the Amur River near Khabarovsk, trying to reduce this problem to a geographical interpretation of the mouth of the Ussuri flowing into the Amur (Chinese point of view). However, he further points out the presence of a map attached to the Treaty of Peking in 1860: "On this map, the red border line defines the "triangle" (the above - mentioned islands. - B. T.) as the Russian territory located between the Amur and Ussuri... In any case, the fact of the existence of a map attached to the Agreement is an argument in favor of the Russian side" (pp. 146-147). "By adopting the principle of the main fairway in the redistricting of river borders, the Russian side has significantly weakened its position... If we follow the principle of the main fairway, no one can deny that the triangle is Chinese territory" (p. 149). Further exploring this issue, A. Iwasita takes the Chinese point of view, arguing that "the correctness of drawing the line itself on this map is questionable" (p.149).

Here, the Japanese researcher convincingly showed that, having recognized with the sanction of N. S. Khrushchev in 1964 the possibility of drawing the border along the main fairway of border rivers and having abandoned the legal basis for delineating the Russian - Chinese border in accordance with the Beijing Treaty of 1860 with the attached documentation in the period of Mikhail S. Gorbachev in the process of negotiations in 1987-1991 with a map with a red line, Soviet diplomacy deprived itself of the main argument in the negotiations, in fact, "cornered" itself in all subsequent negotiations on the border, which led to the loss of 337 square kilometers of Russian territory only in the Khabarovsk region.

In my opinion, the author wrongly reduces the problem of delineation on the border rivers between Russia and China to delineation along the main fairway. In accordance with the Treaty of Peking in 1860, all the islands on the Ussuri and Sungacha rivers and almost all the islands on the Amur River were recognized as Russian territory. So Soviet and Russian diplomacy became hostage to an ill-conceived political decision, which led to the subsequent transfer to China of about 1,500 square kilometers of Russian territory on the border rivers.

In the second and other chapters, A. Iwasita pays too much attention to the "main fairway principle" and in this perspective considers all the controversial situations in the division of islands on border rivers that arose as a result of the implementation of the 1991 Agreement between the USSR and the PRC. Meanwhile, the "main fairway principle" is not a norm of contractual international law, i.e., strictly speaking, it is not required for execution. It was formed after the Paris Peace Conference of 1919-1920 as a norm of customary international law in the form of an international custom, according to which neighboring countries, when establishing borders on rivers, began, as a rule (but not necessarily!), to indicate in border treaties that it runs in the middle of the main fairway of a navigable river, in the middle of the channel or the main branch of a non-navigable river. The author notes that as a result of the completion of the border demarcation in accordance with the" main fairway principle", it turned out that" the islands on the Ussuri River were divided as follows: 167 islands were assigned to Russia, and 153 islands were assigned to China " (p.137).

In the third chapter, A. Iwasita covers 2000 km of the Russian-Chinese border along the Amur River, exploring disputed island territories on the river, especially in its middle course. However, even here the Japanese researcher clearly contradicts historical facts, claiming that "the USSR (Russia) seized a significant part of the Amur Islands, taking advantage of the power vacuum after the defeat of Japan" (p. 173) in 1945. It leads the reader to believe that Japan's colonial rule in Northeastern China from 1932 to 1945 was a boon for Beijing, since there was no power vacuum during the Japanese occupation of Manchuria, and the USSR did not seize river islands of economic importance during this period.

Without entering into a polemic with the author, I note that the border along the Amur River was established by a red line taking into account the larger and smaller size of the islands in accordance with the map attached to the Peking Treaty of 1860. When in 1935 there were claims of Japanese-Manchurian islands in the Khabarovsk region, the border troops of the USSR, in order to avoid the use of acute-

During the Second World War on the Amur River, as a springboard for attacking Soviet territory, they occupied all the islands on the Amur River in strict accordance with the contractual border line indicated on this map.

A. Iwasita notes that as a result, out of 2,444 islands located on the river border between China and Russia, 1,680 are located on the Amur, and due to territorial demarcation, 902 islands were ceded to China, and 778 to Russia (p.174). Considering the problem of the Amur river islands, he uses historical and geographical descriptions of the counties of the Heilongjiang Province of China, which unreasonably claim that "Russia captured a significant part of the Amur Islands not in the 1930s, but after the end of World War II, taking advantage of the post-war chaos" (p.196). Then he leads the reader to believe that this is pure "imperialism", no different from the policy of the tsarist government, that "the Russians, of course, would like to write everything off at the expense of Japan", but if we limit ourselves to the question of the islands, then the conclusion is inevitable that "the true face of the Soviet "liberators" is completely lost. it is identical to the physiognomy of the tsarist "aggressors"" (p. 197). In my opinion, such statements are an example of Japanese anti-Russian propaganda about bilateral Russian-Chinese relations.

The author notes with satisfaction: "China, irritated by the policy of Russia, which does not want to return the islands, went on the offensive from the incident on Damansky Island... It was this active policy that became a prerequisite for success in the return of several hundred islands at once in the Gorbachev era" (p. 173); "concessions are evident immediately after the Damansky incident in 1969; it can be argued that the Damansky incident was expressed in the form of concessions along the entire border line" (p. 197-198). The author concludes: "Perhaps historians should re-evaluate the true impact of the Damansky Island incident on Russian policy towards China and Sino-Russian relations" (p. 198). That's a good point. Chinese politicians and diplomats have practically succeeded in dragging the USSR (and then Russia) into an unprofitable discussion about the border, which was long ago formalized in the existing and indefinite Russian-Chinese treaties, and in imposing their own line in the negotiations using the "Damansky syndrome", i.e. the "Russian-Chinese relations". "the memory of the island's history and the awareness in this context of the emergence of a new Sino-Russian conflict and its spread to the entire border zone became one of the main factors that accelerated the search for a compromise both at Russian-Chinese intergovernmental meetings and at the level of Russian regional administrations, "which" made it possible, even if only with difficulty, to complete the stalled negotiations on the demarcation of the state border" (p.129). An armed Chinese provocation on the border near Damansky Island in 1969 eventually achieved its goal.

In the fourth chapter, A. Iwasita examines Russian border towns (Pogranichny in Primorsky Krai and Blagoveshchensk in the Amur Region) and Chinese border towns (Suifenhe and Heihe in Heilongjiang Province), making a comparative analysis of the state of affairs with the development of adjacent border territories on the Russian and Chinese sides. The travel observations and notes of the Japanese researcher are of considerable interest to Russians, as they allow us to see the problem of Russian-Chinese cross-border cooperation as if "from the inside" and without embellishment.

The fifth chapter deals with the division of islands on the Argun River and in the Chita region. Referring to the historical and legal documents of the territorial-border demarcation between Russia and China in this area, A. Iwasita unequivocally supports the Chinese point of view on the formation of the Russian-Chinese border, using not the bilateral documents on the border demarcation of 1727 and 1911, but modern Chinese publications of 1999, taking them as the ultimate truth. As a mistake, I will note the author's identification of the Treaty of Nerchinsk in 1689 with the Treaty of Kyakhta in 1727 (p. 268).

This chapter deals with the issues of border demarcation for 90 km from the junction of the borders of the PRC, the Russian Federation and the MNR to Argun and further along the border river Argun for 970 km, the problem of the largest 18" foreign " islands that belonged to Russia under the Nerchinsk Treaty of 1689 and the Qiqihar Treaty Act of 1911, but are located on the Chinese side the main channel of the Argun River. These 18 islands occupy 84 % of the area of all the islands on Arguni (p. 269). Exploring the issue of these Russian islands, the author frankly writes about how the Chinese and Russian sides found a way to "calm down" the local Russian population (the Chita region - on Arguni, as well as the Amur Region and the Jewish Autonomous Region - on Amur), who used the territory of the river islands for 340 years on Arguni and 130 years on On the Amur River for economic purposes (grazing, haymaking, fishing) and began to resist the transfer of the islands to China. A "compromise proposal" was adopted, in which, in exchange for the voluntary transfer of ros-

The Chinese authorities recognized the right of local residents to economic activity on the islands (in the author's terminology, the "Menkeseli formula") (p.274).

The principle of" shared use "of the islands was adopted under the 1997 Agreement as a temporary measure, and the time of their "shared use" was agreed in 1999, after the completion of the territorial division, for a period of 5 years (in 1997 it was planned for 10 years) and only for local residents who had a special permit. According to A. Ivasit, the " Menkeseli formula "and the principle of" mutual use", as" a temporary measure to avoid direct conflict in resolving the territorial issue", played"a major role in moving forward the process of border demarcation on the river border that was stalled earlier." However, he "failed to find traces of' joint use 'on most of the Amur and Ussuri islands, which Russia actually transferred to China" (pp. 276-277).

As a result of the change of the border in Transbaikalia in accordance with the" principle of the main fairway " on the Argun River, 204 islands out of 414 islands were assigned to Russia, and 209 islands to China, and China received about 90% of the area of all islands (p.275).

The final part of the book deals with the problems of China's border demarcation with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, which inherited the border of the USSR, within the framework of the Shanghai Five (since 2001 - SCO), economic problems of cooperation between Russia and China in the framework of regional "strategic partnership", problems of "shuttle trade" and Chinese migration in the Russian Far East.

We must pay tribute to the researcher from Japan, who traveled 7500 km from the southernmost point on the Russian-Chinese border near Lake Khasan to the Chinese-Tajik border in the Pamirs. The book contains a large volume of reference and statistical materials, travel notes of the author both on the Russian and Chinese sides of the border. Written primarily for the Japanese reader, it is instructive to a certain extent for Russians who are interested in the problems of the Russian-Chinese border and territorial-border interaction between the two countries.

Permanent link to this publication: