The Date When 370 Sq. Metres of the Russian Territory Will Be Divested Is Defined

On Monday the chapter of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia Sergey Lavrov China arrives to China with two-day visit. He will meet his colleague Jan Tszechi, chairman of People's Republic of China Hu Tszintao and prime-minister Ven Tszjabao. An official representative of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Lju Tszjnchao informed that the question of transfer of islands on Amur will be mentioned, that China can get them in August, after what Tarabarov Island and a half of Big Ussurian Island will disappear. Moscow is ready to transfer these lands to the neighbour next month as it was agreed in October, 2004 Vladimir Putin - the Russian president by the time and Chinese leader Hu Tszintao.

˘┴rabarov will turn into Inlundao, while Big Ussurian becomes halfway Hejsyatszidao.

At the end of 1920th years almost all islands on Ussuri and Amur, including the nearest to Chinese coast, appeared under the Soviet control without strict legal registration. Boundary negotiations started in 1964, in 1991 - 1994 Moscow and Peking solved controversial problems on 98% of extent of a border which passed in the middle of the main waterway of the boundary rivers.

However on the east site of the border near Khabarovsk about 370 sq. km of islands should have been recognized either entirely Chinese, or entirely Russian. Vladimir Putin and Hu Tszintao agreed to draw the border overland through Big Ussurian Island, having divided territory approximately half-and-half, as it was registered in Additional agreement of 2004. It was ratified already by authorities of both countries.

"Time of News" writes that new Russian president Dmitry Medvedev appreciated in value arrangement, in May during visiting Peking University he declared: "Termination of boundary settlements, undoubtedly, is a historical event. As the lawyer I shall add that similar questions are in interstate relations the most stubborn".

From editorial board: Settlement of territorial disputes is really a complicated question but to make a virtue out of such "settlement" which led to a loss of 370 square kilometers of the territory without distinct indemnifications from the other part - a thing which could be done only by the Russian presidents whose authority has absolutely ceased to depend on public opinion.

I want to remind that in 20th years of the last century the Chinese statehood experienced long crisis which occurred after the division of the Empire Cin between great European powers including Russia. Actually, there was no statehood of China at that time in that sense which we meant under this term today. So to execute transition of some territories to the Soviet Russia was technically impossible in view of actual absence of one of contracting parties.

Restoration of the Chinese statehood and establishment of the sovereignty above the Chinese territory is entirely and completely connected with the name Ý┴¤ Tszedun and a struggle of Communist Party of China under his management in which the USSR took the most active part. Actually, it was the period during which it became possible to speak about appearance of interstate relations between Russia and China.

The USSR did not recognize aggressive colonialist policy of imperial Russia by virtue of what a number of purchases of imperial Russia, such as ŰVZhD, Port Arthur, Dalian (Dalny) were transferred to China by the Soviet authority. However priorities of Communist Party of China changed quickly enough from communistic and internationalist to purely national patriotic, there appeared theses about a priority of national-liberation struggle over class - the Communist Party of the Russian Federation tries to adopt it today, though at immeasurably poorer organizational level.

Confrontations on the Societ-Chinese border and actual break between two largest socialist powers became the result of change of priorities in ideology of Communist Party of China. The historical result of this break is a historical defeat of socialist system and its dismantle. It led to disintegration of the country and establishment of feudal-bureaucratic despotisms on its fragments. In China - to restoration of capitalist orders... under control of Communist Party of China. It's not known what is worse.

Today relations of Russia and China are built on principles of wild capitalism with its irrepressible love of enrichment and expansion. Stronger China gets a part of territory from weak and degraded Russia away, the territory on which, as a matter of fact, has no right - if, certainly, not to consider Chinese "communists" lineal heirs of emperors Cin. Russia pretends that it likes the rape with use of a helpless condition of the victim. But Chinese nationalists writing in the Internet are all the same dissatisfied - their heads are occupied with thoughts about 1,5 million sq. km of the Chinese land divested in XIX century by imperial Russia from the Chinese empire. We shall notice, Internet in China is supervised and public opinion couldn't be formed as simply as that - it's actually sounding of a reaction to a possible future official position of Peking.

Positions in relations between Moscow and Peking have exchanged - today Russia faces a threat of transformation into half-colony for world powers, including loss of sovereignty as it happened with China on a boundary of 19-20 centuries. The Russian authorities, apparently, reconciled to this prospect.

Let's notice, there is a clause in the Constitution of the Russian Federation allowing to declare impeachment to the president for a loss of a part of the territory of the country. But this clause, as well as the whole Constitution today is purely decorative. It's a reflection of a paradoxical situation when authoritative authority became not a tool of strengthening of the state but a mechanism of its getting weaker. A citizen can demand nothing from authority - but authority also cannot count on support of the citizen.

Citizen is expropriated from authority and its interests, he perceives interests of the country as interests of Putin, Ý┼dvedev, ßbramovich with Deripaska - of everyone but not own. We have lost islands somewhere on the Far East? But in fact we don't have money to travel by plane, possibly, we won't visit those lands at all. What do we have to do with those islands?

That is, actually, the way empires fall into oblivision.

Anatoly Baranov, editor-in-chief of FORUM.msk