861.77/3041
Memorandum by Mr. Douglas Jenkins of the Division of Russian Affairs, Department of State
declarations and notes from soviet régime to china, with particular reference to the status of the chinese eastern railway
July 25, 1919—Declaration from the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs. This is frequently referred to in subsequent notes, but so far we have not succeeded in finding a copy. It is spoken of as a declaration or “open letter” to the people of China and probably was sent by wireless. Declaration is understood to have expressed Russia’s willingness to abrogate all treaties entered into between China and former Czarist Government, and to open negotiations with a view to restoring former friendship. (My recollection is that this declaration actually renounced extraterritorial rights, also territorial and other special privileges acquired under former treaties.)
October 2, or September 27, 1920 (761.93/212)—Karakhan17a delivered a note to the Chinese General Chang Sze-ling, then in Moscow, together with a covering letter. This note states that the declaration of July 25, 1919, is confirmed and its principles adhered to, that the Soviet Government engages itself to renounce all treaties concluded between the former Russian Imperial Government and China, and to make unconditional return to China of all the rights, concessions and leased territories acquired either by Russian capitalists or by the Czarist Government in China, that the two [Page 932] republics shall endeavor, as far as possible, to restore their former economic and commercial relations, and forthwith conclude a special treaty on the basis of the most favored nation principle, that Russians residing in China shall be subject to Chinese laws and regulations, the same to apply to Chinese in Russia, etc., etc.,—finally, that China and the Soviet Government shall agree to negotiate a special arrangement providing for the use of the Chinese Eastern Railway by Russia, and that when this agreement is made the Far Eastern Republic shall also be a party to it.
Note. China does not appear ever to have acknowledged or ratified these proposals, in any way.
Izvestia, November 4, 1920—published an article by Jansen, of the Far Eastern Republic, reviewing Karakhan’s proposals of October 2, 1920 (or September 27). Jansen admits the original principles of 1919 were developed in more detail in the note of 1920, and in reference to the Chinese Eastern Railway uses this language:
“With respect to the question of the use of the Chinese Eastern Railway, which is being transferred to China, it is proposed to conclude a special agreement with the participation of the Far Eastern Republic. … Such in general are our proposals to the Chinese Government. It goes without saying that this general outline will have to be developed and supplemented by a whole series of agreements on separate questions when relations are actually established.”
September 19, 1922 (861.77/2792)—Joffe addresses note to China protesting against proposed meeting of stockholders of the Chinese Eastern Railway on the grounds that such a meeting is “illegal and without treaty sanction”.
October 14, 1922 (761.93/269)—Joffe acknowledges China’s note of September 25, and then goes on to explain that Russian troops are in Mongolia at the request of the Mongolian people, that their presence is in the real interests of China and that they cannot be withdrawn so long as China allows White movements to be organized in China and the Chinese Eastern Railway territory—Joffe protests against China’s failure to prevent such “misdeeds” and demands categorically that a stop be put to these “White” movements.
October 19–November 3, 1922 (861.77/2866–2905)—Joffe addresses additional notes of protest in regard to conditions on Chinese Eastern Railway, which he declares “will be one of the weightiest questions to be taken up at the forthcoming Russo-Chinese conference.” He suggests a special commission of inquiry by China into the Chinese Eastern Railway affairs. He also demands that general Manager Ostrougoff be dismissed and tried for his crimes of mismanagement and declares that:
“as a matter of fact, the Russian Government alone has the right practically to interfere, being more than any other Government concerned [Page 933] with the future of this Railway, since it was built with the Russian people’s funds and is Russian property until Russia on her own free will decides to confer elsewhere her right of ownership.”
He ends by warning China that her attitude on these suggestions may be the decisive factor in determining Russia’s policy in the forthcoming negotiations between the two countries.
November 6, 1922 (761.93/273)—Joffe addressed still another note to China in regard to the Chinese Eastern Railway. Among other things he said:
“However, with a view again to avoiding any misunderstanding whatsoever, the Extraordinary Plenipotentiary Envoy of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic to the Republic of China deems it necessary at the same time to stress that, on the one side, it was quite wrong to draw the inference from these declarations that Russia renounces all her interests in China.
“By these declarations Russia has renounced the predatory and violent policy of the Czar’s Government and promised to renounce those rights which had accrued to Russia from this policy. But first, until all these questions will have been settled on a free accord between Russia and China, Russia’s rights in China will not have lost their strength, and secondly, these declarations do not at all annul Russia’s local and just interests in China.
“In particular, for instance, even if Russia vests in the Chinese people her title to the Chinese Eastern Railway, this will not annul Russia’s interests in this line, which is a portion of the Great Siberian Railway and unites one part of the Russian territory with another.
“On the other hand, the Extraordinary Plenipotentiary Envoy of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic deems it likewise necessary to emphasize that the promises stipulated in these declarations of 1919 and 1920, which the Workers’ and Peasants’ Government still recognizes as binding it today, cannot after all be valid forever, and that, therefore, unless the Chinese Government discontinues its ignoring of Russian interests, Russia will, perhaps, after all be obliged to consider herself free from these promises which she has voluntarily given.”
It is interesting to observe the change in tone of these declarations. In the beginning they are extraordinarily friendly to China and give the impression that the Soviet Government is so anxious to restore friendly relations and win China as an ally that it is prepared to renounce all Russian rights and interests in China, including extraterritoriality, concessions (the Chinese Eastern Railway?) and other special privileges. Later, however, when the Moscow régime had become stronger and had seized Mongolia in a more arbitrary manner than the Czar’s Government would have dared to do, the attitude changes and the communications are almost threatening to China.
[Page 934]The Mongolian situation is not unlike that of the Chinese Eastern Railway, and since Moscow has not hesitated to invade Mongolia, it is quite within the realm of possibility that similar steps are being considered with regard to the Chinese Eastern. In this connection Consul Hanson’s despatch of November 15, 1922 (LB. 861.77/2903)18 is interesting. The Consul reports that he has learned through Russian sources that the Soviet régime had decided to invade the railway zone by force of arms, but later abandoned this plan temporarily. The Consul adds that Joffe is said to favor the plan, but Ozarnin, the Soviet agent at Harbin, advocates gaining control of the line by peaceful penetration—that is, by gradually forcing out the present Russian officials and filling their places with Soviet henchmen.
It will be recalled that Major Faymonville in a personal letter18 mentions a possible Soviet invasion of the railway zone, and expresses the opinion that the Moscow régime has sufficient troops in the Far East for the purpose. Furthermore, in a recent telegram from Harbin, Consul Hanson mentions a report of a demand having been made by Moscow on China for the return of the former Russian radio station at Harbin.