Essays in Political Geography by Charles A. Fisher

Author:Charles A. Fisher [Fisher, Charles A.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Google: 9wnvtAEACAAJ
Publisher: London
Published: 1968-01-15T03:22:51+00:00

FRONTIERS: A PROBLEM OF PEACE

June 1964 saw the publication by the International Affairs Press in Moscow of a book by B. M. Klimenko, Frontiers: A Problem of Peace. The main argument of the book is that it is essential to avoid aggression in the nuclear age when contemplating changes in ‘historically formed’ frontiers. In spite of ‘repeated violations, some of them amounting to barefaced provocation, the Soviet Union took the initiative in consultations regarding certain sectors of the frontier between the U.S.S.R. and the Chinese People’s Republic … particularly since the Twentieth Party Congress of 1956, the Soviet Government, having greatly extended its frontiers during the War, has carefully refrained from transfrontier excursions. … But the possibilities cannot be excluded that circumstances might impel it to revert to its earlier methods.’1

A further historical inference which may have caused the Chinese some embarrassment was made by Mr Khrushchev in Moscow on 15 September 1964, during an interview he gave to a Japanese parliamentary delegation. Khrushchev stated that the Chinese Emperors had deprived the ‘Uighurs, Kazakhs, Kirghiz and other peoples of their independence’, implying that the Chinese required force to subdue their minority nationalities.2

There was considerable speculation as to whether or not the downfall of Khrushchev would result in an improvement in Sino–Soviet relations, and initially a number of Russian moves indicated that the new leadership wished to facilitate a rapprochement. For instance, issue Number 10 of Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizh (International Affairs), which was released to the press on 21 September 1964 included a controversial article on the Sino–Soviet boundaries. Normally an English language edition of International Affairs follows about a fortnight after the Russian edition, but in this instance the English language edition was delayed, and subsequently published without the article on frontiers. The author of the disputed article was N. M. Khvostov, an editor of the authoritative Diplomatic Dictionary. Significantly, as the Central Asian Review has pointed out, whereas in his article Khvostov insists that the frontier treaties between Tsarist Russia and China were not unequal, ‘the article on Sino–Soviet treaties in Volume III of the Diplomatic Dictionary clearly implies that at the time of publication (1964) the Soviet Government was prepared to admit that they were unequal’.3

Whether or not the Russians showed signs of genuinely wishing to come to terms with the Chinese, the latter remained adamant, and the Russians were accused of ‘trying to poison the relations among the various nationalities of [the Ili Kazakh Autonomous Chou] in order to undermine [China’s] national unity … constantly creating border incidents and attempting to disrupt production in the border areas.’4 These charges reiterated the accusations made in some detail to delegates attending the Second Session of the Fourth People’s Congress of the Ili Kazakh Autonomous Chou held in Ining between 26 and 29 August 1964, when Irhali, Chairman of the Chou declared that the outstanding political and economic achievements had been registered in spite of sabotage by the Khrushchev revisionist clique.1

A few weeks later Saifudin declared at a rally held in

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.