“Russia has Come More Than Twice as Nearer to Us”: The 1896 Moscow Treaty in the Chinese Scholars’ Perceptions

Was the 1896 “Moscow Treaty” (“Sino-Russian Secret Treaty”) an unequal one? The Russian assessments of this Treaty, signed by A.B. Lobanov-Rostovsky, S.Y. Witte and Li Hongzhang on May 22.05/03.06.1896, during Li's visit to celebrate the coronation of Nicholas II in Moscow, is a special topic, already generally explored in our publications. These assessments vary a lot — from negative to generally positive and mixed ones (it was not unequal, had pros and cons for both sides). The positive and mixed assessments are dominating in the domestic studies, which does not mean that this so much disputed topic is terminated in Russian historiography. As for the Chinese historiography, a stereotype exists that almost all Chinese experts perceive and evaluate the “Secret Treaty” purely negatively, as an unequal one. In fact, the conclusions and assessments of the Chinese experts nowadays, just as 120 years ago, are not at all unified or totally negative, but, very like the Russian historiography, contain the whole range of assessments — from negative to positive and the mixed ones. The very existence of this broad spectrum, along with the updating and expansion of concrete arguments, indicates that the discussions about the essence of the “Secret Treaty”, as much as the assessment of Li Hongzhang’s actions are still far from being completed in China’s historiography. The reason to issue this article was a bibliographic review of Chinese studies on the China-Eastern Railway (CER) topic, published by Ma Weiyun and Cui Jianping, a pair of prominent Harbin historians, in the “Discussion Tribune” Section of the Russian “Problems of the Far East” Journal (2021, No. 6).

China, KVZhD (CER), Li Hongzhang, Moscow Treaty, Qing, Russia, Secret Treaty, 1896