ПОГРАНИЧНАЯ ПОЛИТИКА КИТАЙСКОЙ НАРОДНОЙ РЕСПУБЛИКИ

Boundary policy of the Peoples Republic of China

 Foreign policy activity of each state defines the maintenance and character of its relations with the world community as a whole and with separate members of this community and is directed on strengthening of its international positions by maintenance of conditions optimum for it on the world scene.
      The specific targets put before foreign policy of the country, are defined by its interests and have ambiguous character, mentioning as vital, radical, and daily, it is possible to tell, almost household questions. Thus it is necessary to pay attention to one important circumstance. The matter is that statement of concrete foreign policy problems influence not only true national interests, but to a certain extent and the elite ambitions of ruling grouping which also are given out by propagation for national interests. Happens and so that elite ambitions during any historical period completely substitute national interests at definition of a course of foreign policy as a whole or in separate directions of foreign policy activity.
      Elite ambitions can coincide for some time with national interests of the country. Saying particularly about China, undoubtedly that they completely coincided in a question of counteraction to threat to the country from the United States in the first years of existence of national republic. However the political country leaders, undertaking efforts on increase of defensibility and strengthening of safety of China that completely corresponded to requirements of national interests, contrary to them inflated this threat from the USA till the hypertrophied sizes, explaining to "intrigues of the American imperialism» both its agencies and own errors and failures in internal both foreign policy, and miscalculations, failures and defeats of a policy of the countries of socialist camp as a whole. And absolutely unequivocal loss is put to the country and its national interests there where they are completely ignored for the sake of attempts of achievement of the purposes dictated exclusively by ambitions of supervising grouping. The vivid example to that is a policy of the confrontation spent by a management of the Peoples Republic of China of 60-70th concerning Soviet Union, India and Vietnam.
      As to national interests of the state they do not represent something static. They are in constant movement: one of them are realised and die off, others under the influence of a changing intra- and foreign policy situation changing intra- lose the urgency and recede into the background, whereas the third under the influence of the same reasons get priority value. There are new interests. And only one category from a general series of national interests of the state непреходяща, has constant character. It is a question of maintenance of national safety of the state.
      The in itself concept «maintenance of national safety» is extremely capacious, therefore we will stop only on that part of its components which concerns questions of border and the boundary policy.
      Any society organised in the state exists in certain territory, integrity and which inviolability is provided with the state. However safety, integrity and inviolability of the state territory can be provided only in the event that limits, territory borders on which state jurisdiction extends, are accurately defined, recognised by the adjacent state, this recognition is fixed by the international legal certificate, and passage of borders is designated on district. Absence contract the issued interstate delimitation leads sooner or later to occurrence of pogranichno-territorial disagreements, disputes and conflicts between the adjacent countries. Throughout a centuries-old history of the international relations disputes on justice of delimitation of the states were and remain one of most the sharpest and at the same time, probably, the most delicate and painful problem for any independent state.
      Disagreements of the adjacent states on pogranichno - to territorial questions can concern two aspects: passages of frontier (border dispute) and accessories of frontier territories (territorial dispute). Certainly, in both cases the question of passage of border, and a question of an accessory of frontier territories is mentioned also. However, if in a border dispute the area and limits of area which should be transferred the partner in dispute, are defined at its decision after exact passage of border in territorial dispute it is a question of an accessory of one of the adjacent countries of any frontier territory is defined. And only after settlement of this question of the party should solve a question on frontier passage. In essence, settlement of territorial dispute is reduced to the decision of two independent questions: an accessory of disputable territory and frontier passage.
      The reasons of occurrence of pogranichno-territorial disagreements and disputes can be the most various, and the part from them has objective character. The considerable part of the contract-legal documents defining modern passage of frontiers, consisted for a long time, sometimes hundred and more years ago. Imperfection of geodesists and topographers of that time, sometimes insufficient knowledge of district could introduce actual errors in the contractual document. A contractual line of border not always демаркировалась or демаркировалась it is temporary, and eventually frontier marks have disappeared. Absence thus regular checks of border by the parties could lead to that under the influence of various factors arose in due course two lines of border - contractual and actual protected. Some contractual documents contained besides foggy enough or ambiguous positions giving to possibility for their various interpretation. In some cases делимитация it was spent according to a legal formula «uti possidetis» («as you own» or «as you own») that caused disagreements and disputes at specification of passage of a boundary line on district.
      At last, our time was reached also by such cases when the frontier was not defined at all, and existed in quality of "the traditional historically developed ambit» which in practice saw from the different parties of border differently. As to the reasons of occurrence of pogranichno-territorial disagreements and disputes of subjective character, what they spoke пропагандистски, their basis is made by frank territorial claims. If to speak as a whole conditions on country border, character of development of situations arising there and their influence on interstate relations of the adjacent countries completely depend on the maintenance and an orientation of foreign policy of each of them, shown in their boundary policy.
      The in itself term «the boundary policy» has affirmed as the western science and publicism in 30-40th; later, somewhere in 60th, it has won to itself(himself) the right to existence and in a domestic science. Besides a usual circle of questions which rise before the states in the course of the international dialogue, adjacent, i.e. having the general border, the states face in the mutual relations variety of the specific problems arising in connection with presence of the general border. A state position on these problems, their ways and methods of the decision also are its boundary policy in narrow sense. In this sense the term «the boundary policy» is used both in the scientific literature, and in publicism more often.
      ; However such interpretation of the term «the boundary policy», apparently, far does not settle its maintenance. Formation of territory of the state, actual formation and registration of its frontier - process long and difficult, connected both with acquisition, and with loss of any earths. In due course these historical changes of territorial limits of the state can be at the bottom of occurrence of serious difficulties in mutual relations of the adjacent countries, disagreements, disputes, border conflicts and even wars between them. It far not in the last instance is connected by that questions of acquisition and especially loss by the state in the course of formation of its territory of any earths and formation of its borders, possibly, more all is subject to a tendency to reconsideration and revaluation by their public. Naturally, this revaluation is conducted from positions of the present and proceeding from positions of the right and practice of the international relations not that period when took place formation and registration of borders, and today. In this plan it is indicative, as the management of this or that country concerns these questions.
      It can consider nowadays existing politiko-territorial realities as an objective result of historical development and proceeding from it to build the policy and the mutual relations with the adjacent countries on principles of indestructibility and inviolability of existing borders and mutual respect of territorial integrity and the sovereignty. In practice such policy is characterised by realisation of the measures directed on development of friendly communications and widespread cooperation of frontier areas of the adjacent countries; carrying out of military building in the boundary space, the safety limited to strict frameworks and reasonable sufficiency; close friendly cooperation of the boundary authorities of the adjacent countries at the decision of all questions directly connected with border. At the governmental level the policy is followed of constant search of ways of the further strengthening and development of the consent and cooperation with the adjacent countries in different areas.
      But can be and so that the country leaders consider nowadays existing politiko-territorial realities not as a result of objective historical process of formation of territory of the state and its boundaries, and is exclusive as result are permanent the hostile policy of the adjacent countries ostensibly meaningly going in the past on infringement of its rights and interests, on infringement of its territorial integrity. In this case the aspiration to reconsider developed politiko-territorial realities and their legal maintenance under the pretext of necessity of correction admitted in the past несправедливостей becomes one of priority problems of all foreign policy of such state. And in this case the state management aspires to carry out variety of measures which would provide to it unconditional support of the public, absence of any discontent with its actions in frontier areas, at least understanding, and it is better - direct support of any part of the world community etc. Thus, the boundary policy in a broad sense-it set of actions inside - the foreign policy, economic and military character, connected with a pogranichno-territorial question.
      The boundary policy is the effective tool as protection of national safety of the country, and active influence on the adjacent countries for the sake of realisation of those or other interests of the state. Speaking directly about China, it is necessary to pay attention to a number of the specific moments. First, in China long since there was a concept, according to which the earths, there is no time a part of the Chinese state or the dependences which were in any degree on it, were considered as a part of its territory. If in the course of historical development they got independence or were a part of other states, they were considered as "the lost" territories. This concept has found the reflexion not only in works of the Chinese researchers, but also in performances of political leaders of the country of the newest period. Has in detail listed territorial "losses" of China Put Jatsen in the work «Three national principles». Without repeating all list given to it of "territorial losses», we will mention only that, in its opinion, «in the north the border of China passed far to the north of the river Heilongjiang (the Cupid. - Е.С), in the south - to the south of the Himalayas, in the east - further East sea and in the west - to the west of Pamir. And all it was the Chinese territory». Later these listed «territorial losses» also the subsequent political leaders of China - Chan Kajshi and Mao Tszedun. Has reminded of these "losses" in conversation with M.S.Gorbachev during its visiting of China in 1989 and Dan Sjaopin.
      Secondly, how Chineses imagined limits of territory of the country in the past, in reality the Chinese National Republic, being the assignee of the Chinese Republic, has received from it only that territory which last owned, excepting an island Taiwan where government Gomindana has been squeezed out"as a result of civil war and which continues to remain the Chinese Republic till now. The Chinese Republic has in turn inherited that territory which its predecessor - Tsinsky empire though here again after Sinhajsky revolution of 1911 there were some territorial changes owned: with empire falling External Mongolia and Tibet as deposition of the Tsinsky monarchy liquidated the legal basis defining the status of these territories in the Chinese state - system of vassal relations of directly their spiritual governors with an imperial dynasty Cin have proclaimed the independence. The government of the Chinese Republic repeatedly undertook attempts by force to restore control over Mongolia and Tibet, however they have not crowned success. Moreover, the Mongolia which has got since the first days of the opposition to harassments of China to return of it under the control under guardianship of Russia, and then Soviet Union, could not only keep the independence of China, but also receive - after a national referendum in October, 1945 - an official recognition of this fact the government of the Chinese Republic, confirmed subsequently and the Chinese National Republic (truth, опосредованно - the fact of an establishment with it of diplomatic relations).
      It, however, does not mean yet that the mode which has come to power in continental China as a result of civil war 1946-1949, has completely agreed with the occurred politiko-territorial changes. Above it was already mentioned that the leader of a handheld computer Mao Tszedun completely made common cause with statements of the Chinese scientists and politicians concerning "loss" of considerable territories by China. As to a question on Mongolia in 1936 in conversation with the American journalist E.Snou it has expressed the firm belief that after a victory of national revolution in China Mongolia «automatically and of the own free will» will be a part of new China. In the spring of 1949 when it became already clear that during civil war forces headed by communists win, Mao Tszedun has addressed to the Soviet management with the request to state the opinion on possibility of joining of the Mongolian National Republic to China. И.В. Stalin has answered then to the leader of the Chinese communists that heads of Soviet Union do not think that МНР will go «on refusal of the independence in favour of an autonomy as a part of the Chinese state» and that anyway «the solving word in this business should belong to the Most external Mongolia».
      Attempts to "return" Mongolia in structure of China were undertaken and later, in particular, in 1954 when in Beijing on celebrating of the 5 anniversary of the Peoples Republic of China there were partijno-governmental delegations and МНР, and the USSR. It is not out of place to mention and that in left in 1977 in Hohhot «Mengutszu цзяньши» («Short history of the Mongolian nationalities») on the first page was directly specified to the book that the Mongolian nationalities live in the Chinese territory. And in article published in № 2, on 1994, magazine «Tszjunshi deprive» and devoted to rather original analysis of events of 1938 at the lake of Hasan and 1939 - on the river the Halhin-goal, the author extremely accurately writes that «Mongolia is a part of China and External Mongolia» was called. China of results of a referendum in Mongolia concerning its independence the author calls the fact of a recognition «a national shame».
      Thirdly, country boundaries as they were received by the Chinese National Republic at the moment of the declaration, have been defined and issued far not completely. Had no contract-legal registration a part of border of China with Korea (on the river Yalu Jiang), its border with Mongolia and a site from the lane Ouse-Bel on the Soviet-Chinese border to mountain Tszjangao on Chinese-burmese border (i.e. a Pamir site of the Soviet-Chinese border, border of China with Afghanistan, disputable Kashmir, India, Nepal, Butane, Sikkim, partially with Burma). Differently, not issued in contract-legal relations remains more than half of extent of frontier of the country. Fourthly, at last, excepting the English-Chinese agreement 1941 on a southern disputable site of border between China and Burma, all contractual documents, concerning borders of China, have been concluded still in цинский the period of its history. Survey, check or редемаркации borders since then it was not spent. Have as a result fallen into decay, have collapsed and many frontier marks have been lost, and on a number of sites - due to various reasons an objective and subjective order - has occurred some kind of border deformation when besides a contractual ambit there was one more - actually protected. Such situation has arisen, in particular, on separate sites of the Soviet-Chinese and Chinese-Vietnamese border.
      On the eve of declaration of national republic in Beijing session of the National political advisory council of China (НПКСК) on which the General program - the time constitution of the country has been accepted has taken place. Naturally, main attention in the General program has been given the questions connected with building of the new state. Territory questions in the document directly were not put, but some formulations give the grounds for reflexions. So, in article 2 it is told:« The central national government of the Chinese National Republic should incur responsibility for finishing till the end of people's liberation war, release all territory of China and finish business of association of the country ». Two first positions of this article cannot cause any doubts or questions, but the thesis« to finish business of association of the country », proclaimed independently, separately from a problem of clearing of areas of the country which were still under control with Gomindana and listed Mao Tszedunom in its speech at opening of session НПКСК, force to remember quite concrete« territorial losses »China at least in the XX-th century.
      Legitimacy of independence of Mongolia - we will repeat - has been recognised нанкинским by the government in January, 1946 As it was found out, this formal certificate has not rendered influence on actual approaches Chinese традиционалистов, however attempt to solve this question, undertaken Mao Tszedunom in the beginning of 1949, have terminated in failure. There was still Tibet which categorically was not wishing after almost 40-year-old independent and original existence to come back in structure China. And in October, 1950 the Chinese armies have entered on territory of Tibet. Having suffered a number of military defeats, the Tibetan authorities have been compelled to capitulate and have signed in May, 1951 in Beijing the agreement on actions for peace clearing of Tibet. These facts give the grounds to consider that «end of association of the country» the General program НПКСК understood "returning" as the thesis "rebellious" Mongolia and Tibet in structure of the Chinese state. To some extent it the prime minister of the State administrative council of China has confirmed also Chzhou Enlaj who in the performance in Standing committee NPKSK in October, 1951 has noticed that for the first time in contemporary history with clearing of Tibet the unity of the people of continental China is restored.
      The introduction of the Chinese armies into Tibet has coincided on time with two other events which have caused sharp growth of vigilance concerning the Peoples Republic of China and its policy in neighbouring countries. At this particular time the Chinese armies (so-called «the Chinese national volunteers») have been entered into Korea, and the Peoples Republic of China has taken direct part in the military conflict on the Korean peninsula, and the Shanghai publishing house «Ditu чубаньшэ» has let out the first after creation of the Peoples Republic of China a wall card of China. Foreign observers have paid attention at once that the image of borders of China on this card in variety of cases did not correspond to the description of their passage given in contractual documents earlier concluded by China. A year later, in 1951, the same publishing house has published «the Atlas of provinces of the Peoples Republic of China». On cards of this edition of border of the Peoples Republic of China were represented so that in structure of the Chinese territory joined: Mountain Pektusan (Bajtoushan or Chanbajshan) Korea, some areas of Primorski Krai and Priamurja of Russia, the most part the Bayan-Ulgijsky, Kobdo-skogo and Suhe-Batorsky аймаков Mongolia, a number of areas of Kazakhstan and Kirghizia, mountain-Badahshansky autonomous region of Tajikistan, procentury Badahshan of Afghanistan, a part of Ladaka and Kashmir, were object of the indijsko-Pakistan dispute, Northeast boundary agency (the NAVE, nowadays allied territory Arunachal Pradesh) India, considerable parts of the Shansky and Kachinsky independent states (nowadays national areas) Burma, island of South China sea.
      The publication of similar maps and sharts has caused diplomatic demarches of some the countries next to China, concerned themes that it can mean renewal of the Peoples Republic of China the territorial claims which were put forward still by Tsinsky empire. It is necessary to notice in passing that neither the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, nor embassy of the USSR in Beijing did not react in any way to occurrence of these materials. However, when in 1952 at the desire of the Peoples Republic of China Soviet Union has transferred it the complete set of topographic maps with a designation of a line of the Soviet-Chinese border, the Chinese party also has not passed an opinion any remarks of that this designation obviously did not coincide on a number of sites that was represented on the Chinese cards.
      As to demarches in connection with the publication of the mentioned materials the Chinese government explained to partners that it yet did not have time for detailed acquaintance with a question and drawing up of new cards, therefore it only publishes the cards prepared for printing still гоминьдановскими by the authorities. However the publication of cards proceeded, causing special anxiety in Burma and India which constantly paid attention of the Chinese party to necessity of modification of the image of borders of China. In reply to it, continuing to insist that borders of China on again published cards «are represented on the basis of the cards published in China before clearing», the Chinese party underlined that there is it owing to that the government of the Peoples Republic of China «did not undertake still survey of borders of China and did not consult to the interested countries». It was noticed that «eventually and after consultations of the various countries and survey of borders the new tracing of borders of the Peoples Republic of China according to results of consultations and survey» will be defined.
      However, absence «consultations and survey» borders has not prevented the Chinese party already in the following edition «Atlas of provinces of the Peoples Republic of China», carried out in 1953, to make some changes to tracings of borders of the country. So, the Chinese-burmese border on a number of sectors has been moved deep into burmese territory. Were, truth, are made change and other plan. To Soviet Union "Atlas" of 1953 "has returned" mountain-Badahshansky autonomous region, and to Afghanistan - procentury to Badahshan. The border in this area - from the lane Ouse-Bel on the Soviet-Chinese border to area to the north of lane Karakorum in the range with the same name - began to be supplied with a mark «unstated border». The similar note represented the facts, but that fact that all Himalaya border of China which has become later by object of the Chinese-Indian dispute, border, which as confirmed in the letter from November, 7th, 1959 to the Indian prime minister Dzh is curious. Nehru of the premieres of the Peoples Republic of China Chzhou
      Эньлай, «has been never established», it is designated in "Atlas" as the established border. As a whole the government of the Peoples Republic of China tried to evade from a statement of the position on a boundary matter of substance. In April, 1955 in Bandung (Indonesia) has taken place Conference of the countries of Asia and Africa. Understanding that full hushing up of the relation to more and more clearly shown presence of disagreements with the adjacent countries on a boundary question cannot promote strengthening of positions of the Peoples Republic of China on the world scene and first of all among афроазиатских the countries, many of which have already faced a pogranichno-territorial question, the Chinese party has undertaken at conference the maneuver, having the purpose to remove anxiety of neighbouring countries and the known intensity which has arisen in this connection in region. In the performance on April, 23rd, 1955 at session of Political committee of conference prime minister Chzhou Enlaj heading delegation of the Peoples Republic of China, has declared:« We are ready to keep our government and our people from the slightest infringements of border. If it occurs, we willingly recognise the error ». And though in this statement did not contain anything to the point, it is necessary to recognise that at that time it to no small degree promoted decrease in level of concern of neighbours of the Peoples Republic of China and the general intensity in South East Asia.
      Soon, however, the Chinese government has appeared compelled to express more definitely on this problem. After only 7 months after Bandung conference, in November, 1955, in the heart of burmese territory - in 60 km from border - the burmese military unit has been attacked from an ambush by the Chinese soldiers. The information on the conflict and its circumstances has been given publicity only in July, 1956 Aspiring to neutralise that sharply negative response in the world which has received this fact, the Chinese party has been compelled to come into contact quickly to the government of Burma concerning Chinese-burmese border, and in July, 1957 prime minister Chzhou Enlaj has acted on this question at session of Vsekitajsky meeting of national representatives (ВСНП). And though as a whole the report has been devoted a question of Chinese-burmese border, in it a number of basic positions which have laid down in the subsequent in a basis of the Chinese position on a granichno-territorial question as a whole contained.
      First of all prime minister Chzhou Enlaj recognised that «between our country and many neighbouring countries there are questions of incomplete definition of the ambit, left history». The prime minister has considered necessary to unite in one shared problem all set of the boundary questions causing or able to cause disagreements and disputes: for a long time contract defined, but never since then borders exposed to check; replacing borders existing throughout much years the lines of demarcation which have arisen as consequence of the arrangement of the adjacent countries to observe developed status quo; throughout centuries existing so-called «traditional borders», never defined contract, and furthermore not designated on district; at last, there were the contractual documents defining border, which legitimacy the Chinese party refused to recognise.
      According to prime minister Chzhou Enlaja, the reason of occurrence of boundary questions is covered in intrigues of imperialistic forces. «A question on border... - he, - as well as told many resolved questions in relations between other countries of Asia and Africa, is generated by an aggressive policy which was spent for a long time by imperialists». Really, all contracts about borders of China are concluded during this period when it bordered on imperial Russia, colonial possession of England and France and Japanese protectorate Korea. Thereupon it is necessary to note the following.
      First, estimating a policy of imperialistic powers of the past from exclusively ideological positions, Chzhou Enlaj underlined that this policy was unequivocally aggressive, aggressive, and completely ignored that historic fact that all imperialistic powers, excepting Japan, have been interested not in section of China or capture of a part of the Chinese territory, and in its preservation in world politics system as uniform independent unit. Secondly, though in relations with China for the sake of achievement of the purposes of power, really, time and again resorted to use of power pressure, however China had enough political possibilities to counteract this pressure. That can see examples and in refusal of Beijing to ratify the Livadijsky contract of 1879 with Russia, and in flat refusal to carry on negotiations with England for differentiation in the Himalayas, and in refusal to accept northern site of border with Burma in that kind as the English party insisted on it. (Beginning negotiations with China about делимитации Chinese-burmese border in the beginning of 90th of XIX century, Englishmen have preliminary conducted the careful researches, concerning stories, economic relations and ethnography of frontier areas. By results of these researches they also built the position at negotiations. A unique question on which they have met categorical objections of China, - border passage on its extreme northern site. Englishmen insisted on border carrying out on a watershed - to a ridge of Gaoligun, whereas Chineses - in 100-150 km to the southwest from it. As a result both the Convention of 1894, and the Convention of 1897 have left this site not defined to the subsequent decision. The question has been solved only with signing of the contract of 1960 about border between the Peoples Republic of China and Burma. The boundary line is spent in full conformity with offers of the English party at negotiations in the end of XIX century And in contract article 5 it is noticed that the border «is established according to a traditional ambit».
      Later on the basis of the positions stated in the report of Chzhou Enlaja, there was a concept about неравноправности the contracts of China which has defined its borders. In brief this concept has been stated in the editorial «Zhenmin жибао» from March, 8th, 1963 where, in particular, it was told: «On an extent more than hundred years to a victory of the Chinese revolution imperialistic and colonial powers - the USA, England, France, imperial Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, Austria, Belgium, Holland, Spain and Portugal - conducted the unbridled aggression against China. They have compelled the government of old China to sign with it many unequal contracts... On the basis of these unequal contracts they have grasped territories in the east and the West, in the south and the north, rented at China the earths in seaside areas and in the heart of the country».
      Obviously, pertinently in this connection to notice that in the international relations of the past contractual certificates carried some kind of "universal" or "multiplane" character. They contained articles defining jurisdiction and frameworks of economic and financial activity of citizens of one of the parties in territory of other party, questions of trade, customs taxation, mail services, transport, the finance and delimitation. To a greater or lesser extent these contracts, really, struck at the rights and interests of China and its citizens on mentioned questions, excepting questions of boundary delimitation. These positions of contracts reflected a real state of affairs in boundary space and if later in China a steel and them to carry to a category "unequal" it testified only that during preparation of the corresponding contract the Chinese party could not realise the territorial claims. The concept «неравноправности» contracts of the past on border especially was necessary for the Chinese party when during 60th years which have arisen from the beginning of the Soviet-Chinese ideological disagreements under the Chinese initiative the increasing emphasis began to become on foreign policy questions and, first of all, - on a pogranichno-territorial question.
      Contractual documents or their separate positions, concerning delimitations, concern a special category of contracts. Among the international contracts they have the steadiest character: they cannot односторонне be terminated, on them the reservation «геЬиз зю 81апйЬи $» does not extend, they are not cancelled even by a state of war between their participants. They are not influenced also by realisation of assignment of the states as the state-assignee receives only what its predecessor possessed, and speech, thus, goes not so much about contractual decisions about border, how many about a situation which is fixed and documented in these decisions. Concerning the reasons of occurrence of boundary disagreements on boundaries of China, Chzhou Enlaj has made the reservation which given some ambiguity to its estimations politicians of imperialists and has demanded subsequently from a management by the Peoples Republic of China of entering коррективов in the report. But there was it later when the edge both boundary, and all foreign policy of the Peoples Republic of China has appeared directed basically against Soviet Union and India.
      Marking complexity of a historical background on which there was a question on Chinese-burmese border, the prime minister has told: «In domination of feudal dynasties of border of China, as well as border of many other countries of the feudal period, have not been accurately defined. Relations of feudal dynasties in China to the nationalities occupying окраинные areas, were also unequal in character and affinity degrees. Therefore precisely to define borders of China of the period of feudal empire it is almost impossible».После that as China has appeared compelled to solve the boundary problems with small neighbours and not settled there were only questions on border of China with Soviet Union which is defined on большей the part by past contracts, with India where, under the statement of the Chinese party, there is well-known «a traditional line of border», and Korea, Jalu passing on the river, the Chinese party has cardinally changed the approaches to this question and its historical estimations.
      In the document the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Peoples Republic of China from October, 8th, 1969 in connection with a question on the Soviet-Chinese border in the position stated by Chzhou Enlaem in 1957, the changes have been made, having an ultimate goal to assign all responsibility for occurrence of pogranichno-territorial problems exclusively to imperialists-partners of China of that time. As the document affirms: «Even more two thousand years ago China became already uniform multinational feudal state. And China always as the multinational state existed in the world irrespective of the fact how feudal dynasties and what nationality were replaced one for another was correcting in the country. Borders of China underwent in the history many changes, but these borders were never limited within the areas occupied ханьцами; before intrusion into China western imperialistic powers in the middle of a XIX-th century of border of China were accurately and are clearly defined».
      Speaking about ways of the decision of the problems connected with border, Chzhou Enlaj has underlined that the government of the Peoples Republic of China recognises that «all unresolved questions existing between our country and other countries, should obtain the fair and rational permit by peace consultations». In already mentioned article «Zhenmin жибао» from March, 8th, 1963 have been brought in this thesis a bit different accents: «As to some questions left history, we always stand up for to resolve them peacefully, by negotiations to resolve them when conditions, and to their permission to keep existing position for this purpose will ripen. Such questions concern... All questions on borders which have not been officially established by two corresponding parties». Still later, in 1969, this thesis it was formulated so:« As to the questions which have remained from history on borders with neighbouring countries the government of the Chinese National Republic always acted and supports their fair and rational permission on the basis of mutual understanding and mutual compliance, with the account both historical circumstances, and reality ». The Chinese management tried to convince the world that it acts exclusively for the peace decision arisen пограничнотерриториальных disputes, hence, all responsibility for arisen on its borders with India and the USSR the armed incidents lie exclusively on them.
      By way of illustration with this question it is not out of place to real situation to address to the Mongolian newspaper "Unen" which on September, 19th, 1979, shortly before 30th anniversary of creation of the Peoples Republic of China, ascertained that «from 90 military conflicts which were taking place in Asia after the Second World War, 19 has arisen because of the Peoples Republic of China». After creation of the Peoples Republic of China frontier guards of China far have entered not at once on country borders direct contact to boundary protection of the adjacent countries. In Vietnam and Laos northern areas were arena of difficult fights of national-liberation forces with the French colonial army; northern and northeast areas of Burma have appeared in the power шанских and качинских separatists and receded here from Yunnan гоминьдановских armies; in Tibet and Sintszjane the Chinese armies did not hasten to leave to that line which was considered as the western border of China. And eventually it was found out that in process of an exit of the Chinese armed forces to borders on variety of sites Chineses crossed it, getting deep into territories of the adjacent countries. Sometimes - basically it took place on the Himalaya border - such penetrations had character single, as though prospecting operations, on other sites the Chinese armies tried to locate in another's territory thoroughly as it took place on border with Burma. Later - from the end of 50th years - the Chinese party, using civilians, undertook attempts to organise «economic development» frontier areas of some the adjacent countries. Such attempts have been fixed on borders of China with Vietnam, Laos, Soviet Union, Mongolia.
      At the same time the government of the Peoples Republic of China continued to evade as from a statement of the position on the general questions, concerning country borders about what it was told above, and from discussion of concrete questions on which to it the authorities of the adjacent countries addressed. Beijing, for example, has not answered the offer of Mongolia to spend делимитацию and legal registration of the Chinese-Mongolian border existing as traditional, with which Mongolian party has acted soon after creation of the Peoples Republic of China.
      The Chinese-Mongolian border became a point of issue only in 1958, after numerous persevering offers of the government of Mongolia. By then it became absolutely clear that Soviet Union categorically does not support idea of Beijing about "reunion" of Mongolia with China, and attempts of China to put direct pressure upon Mongolia in a corresponding direction have not crowned success. And then one more prominent feature in conducting boundary affairs by China - its aspiration to limit discussion of boundary questions by frameworks of usual diplomatic correspondence has come to light. Such character of discussion allowed the Chinese diplomacy to tighten question discussion, as a matter of fact, without resorting to any additional dodges. As a result visibility of was only created that settlement searches are conducted, but this settlement did not move off dead centre.
      Under the same scenario in 1955-1960 discussion and a Chinese-burmese boundary question was conducted. And in both cases occurrence of the additional external factor which has threatened interests of the Peoples Republic of China and its position on the world scene that not only to shift discussion of a boundary question was required, but also to lead to its decision. Such factor was the Chinese-Indian border dispute which not only has caused in 1959 sharp strain of relations between two countries, but also has resulted in 1962 in military collision between them. It is necessary to search for the conflict reasons, on the one hand, in a domestic situation of China. The failure of experiment with «the big jump» has caused mass discontent in the country. The conflict on border, efforts of propagation transformed into direct military threat of territorial integrity of China, has allowed to switch attention of a society from internal problems on external that has weakened internal intensity in the country. On the other hand, from the end of 50th years in the increasing degree the ambitious aspiration of heads of the Peoples Republic of China of those years to confirm the leadership among the young countries of Asia and Africa began to be shown. However among politicians and the public of these countries India and personally its prime minister Dzh used huge authority. Nehru in practice proving the adherence to a cause of peace and freedom, blocks steadily opposing military men and power methods of the decision of the international disputes. Having initiated the armed incidents on border, and then and large-scale boundary war, the Chinese party has at that time tried to discredit India in the opinion of world community, having presented it if not an aggressor (though and about it it was told in materials of the Chinese propagation), at least, the country which has inherited экспансионистскую to the politician of the British colonialism.
      From the moment of creation of national republic the Chinese management constantly represented China the peaceful state steadily supporting maintenance of independence, freedom, integrity of territory and the sovereignty of all countries, against the imperialistic policy of aggression, war and military threats. Armed conflicts on the Himalaya border, and then and approach of the Chinese army in this area destroyed this image. They have revived that mistrust to China and anxiety concerning its policy which existed in the early fifties. Those diplomatic and propaganda actions which the Chinese party undertook in attempt to prove justice and validity of the actions and to make responsible for the conflict the Indian party, no success had. Any extraordinary measures which could rectify situation were required and return that degree of trust of the countries of region to the Peoples Republic of China which existed before the Himalaya events 1959-1962
      Here the Chinese diplomacy also used those possibilities which were given to it by settlement of boundary questions. Already in the beginning of 1960 the agreement, and then and the boundary treaty with Burma, in 1961 - with Nepal, in 1962, in a month after the beginning of "the Himalaya war» with India have been signed, the Peoples Republic of China signs the boundary treaty with Mongolia, in March, 1963 - the temporal agreement which has defined a line of differentiation in Kashmir between China and its that part which was under control of Pakistan, and in the end of the same year - the boundary treaty with Afghanistan.
      Prominent feature of this of "campaign of boundary settlements» 1960-1963 was pointed refusal of the Chinese party from those territorial claims which represented earlier the basic obstacle at discussion of a boundary question. During this "campaign" she did not begin to focus attention and on those questions which in other conditions would be a subject of long disputes. A new aggravation of an internal political situation in China in days of "cultural revolution" and requirement of the Peoples Republic of China reconsidered by a management of the foreign policy line directed on normalisation of relations from the USA, have caused sharp growth of intensity in the Soviet-Chinese relations confrontations on border in 1969 became which apogee Though the Soviet-Chinese border was on большей the part делимитирована variety of the contracts concluded still in XIX century The Chinese party considered these contracts as "unequal", insisted on necessity of that Soviet Union recognised this circumstance and, having executed some more conditions which the next years repeatedly changed, would conclude the new contract on the Soviet-Chinese border.
      Thereupon it is necessary to notice that during the Soviet-Chinese boundary consultations which were passing in Beijing in the summer of 1964, the party have practically prepared and have co-ordinated the draught agreement on east site of border. However the Chinese party then has refused continuation of these negotiations and in the subsequent preferred to remember them as seldom as possible. Certainly, on the Soviet-Chinese border there were the questions demanding settlement. The border did not look round in a bilateral order at least from an establishment of the Soviet power in Russia, under the influence of various events on either side of border there was its known deformation, many frontier marks have decayed, have collapsed or have disappeared. However all it was questions for negotiations, instead of for force application. The Chinese party has at that time gone on this way, as has led to occurrence of confrontations.
      Going on strain of relations from the USSR, the Chinese heads, as well as in relations with India, aspired to discredit first of all it in the opinion of world public opinion, to undermine its authority among members of the world community, and on the other hand, - to present the Peoples Republic of China such «the besieged fortress» which attack both the American imperialists, and the Soviet socialist imperialists that demands finally the further rallying of the Chinese people and strengthening of dictatorship of a ruling clique.
      The situation on northern border of China has caused a new wave of concern in the world, first of all in the adjacent countries with it as during the same period it had been took outstanding measures on rendering of all-round pressure upon a number of neighbouring countries on purpose to subordinate to their political influence. Understanding that the combination of all these factors can have negative influence on world situation of the country and aspiring to soften it, the Chinese government has agreed with offer of the Soviet party to renew discussion of a boundary question. As a matter of fact, these negotiations which have renewed in the end of 1969, throughout 15 with superfluous remained years ineffectual. And only in the mid-eighties political changes, events both in Soviet Union, and in China, have led at first to softening of their positions, liquidation of the armed opposition, and then and to agreement achievement on east site of border, a question the draught agreement on which has been prepared in 1964
      Disintegration of Soviet Union has led to sharp reduction western - Central Asian - a site of the Russian-Chinese border. The agreement on it has been reached in 1994 A year before the Peoples Republic of China has concluded the boundary treaty with Laos, as a whole confirmed the passage of border defined by Franco-Chinese contracts of the end of XIX century In 1994-1999 boundary settlement with Kazakhstan has been finished, in 1999 the Chinese party has signed also preliminary agreements on border with Kirghizia and Tajikistan.
      There can not be doubts that heads of the Peoples Republic of China clearly understood that safety, integrity and inviolability of territory of the state will be provided only when will be definitively defined, accurately designated also contract frontiers of China are fixed. If to speak as a whole on achievement of this purpose and basically the boundary policy of the Peoples Republic of China has been directed. However this policy a little originally was realised. First of all it is necessary to notice that circumstance that the Chinese party absolutely meaningly postponed the beginning of discussion of boundary questions with the adjacent countries and when such discussions all the same began, they is artificial were tightened by statement of the questions having very remote relation to discussed problems. It is represented that it is necessary to search for the reason of such tactics of the Chinese diplomacy in the following.
      First, as it was already told, in the General program НПКСК there was a task in view of end of association of the country. It is necessary to understand as it not only liquidation of control of Gomindana over yet cleared regions of the country, but also "returning" in structure of China of Mongolia and Tibet. Contacts of heads of Communist Party of China to the Soviet management clearly testify to it concerning Mongolia and military measures concerning Tibet. Naturally, existence contract the issued border of the Peoples Republic of China with Mongolia would be a serious formal obstacle for realisation of such plans.
      Secondly, a number adjacent with China the small countries, such as Vietnam, Burma, Nepal, traditionally were considered in China dependent on it. It was marked in the past by such political leaders of China as Put Jatsen and Mao Tszedun23. To "Return" them in structure of China it was not represented possible - it understood both leaders of a handheld computer and the Peoples Republic of China, but it was possible to try to create some kind of «a zone of political influence» China, i.e. system of relations with the small neighbours, in some measure reminding that which existed during an epoch of Tsinsky empire, and to try to include in it these countries. And in this case unresolved or not up to the end solved question of borders and frontier territories could serve as strong enough means of psychological and power pressure for them. For such use of a boundary question borders also should remain for the time being in a former condition.
      And only having faced negative reaction of the world community to large-scale use of force in the conflict to India, China has been compelled to recede from the selected line of action and quickly to solve a question of definition and legal registration of borders with the small neighbours. Having reconsidered in the eighties many positions of the foreign policy concept, the management of the Peoples Republic of China began to follow more weighed policy on international scene. It has affected and the boundary policy. Has found basically the decision initiated more 30 years ago a management of China of that time a question on the Russian-Chinese border, were, as it was mentioned above, boundary agreements with the states of the Central Asia - the former republics as a part of the USSR and with Vietnam are signed. Conditions in zones of not settled pogranichno-territorial disputes were stabilised and became by quieter. Certainly, there from time to time can occur and, really, there are any incidents, even armed conflicts, however they have casual character, instead of are, as it took place in 60-70th in advance planned and carefully prepared by the action.
      Along with it should pay to itself of attention and some guarding moments. There is no progress in discussion by the Chinese and Indian parties of a question on border in the Himalayas. The parties cannot while to find any point on which their positions were at least close. The agreements signed by China with Kirghizia and Tajikistan, are, in essence, only the documents confirming the Russian-Chinese arrangement of 1894 about preservation of the status quo in area Pamirov, on an iota without advancing a question on border passage to settlement.
      In mutual relations the Chinese party persistently refuses to discuss a question on Paravillages with Vietnam; still there is no progress at negotiations about differentiation of water spaces of gulf of Tongking. In a condition of "the postponed dispute» the questions connected with claims of China on islands Senkaku in the East China Sea and island Spratli in South China sea stay. There are opened questions in connection with the Chinese-Korean border, and its part - on the river of Jalu (Амноккан) - continues to remain without contract-legal registration. At last, on the Russian-Chinese border there are on east site two not settled sectors on the rivers the Cupid and Ussuri in the general extent about 60 km. On proceeding consultations on this question of the party also cannot come while to mutual understanding.
      Thus, thus, that conditions on borders of China on boundary ХХ-ХХ1 look centuries quiet and as though does not cause fears, on them there are still disputable sites or the sites which do not have legal registration. And in the event that the management of the country will have again extremist groupings, they can quite use the remained questions for rendering of pressure upon neighbouring countries by conditions aggravation on border or threats of such aggravation in attempt to reach the certain foreign policy purposes.