November 16, 1981
Sino-Soviet Trade, 1981
[51]
MPR Embassy in the Soviet Union
Meeting, record of conversation
November 16, 1981 Moscow
Sino-Soviet trade, 1981
On November 16, 1981 Embassy counselor Ts. Narkhuu met with the Deputy Head of the USSR MFA Boris Nikolaevich Vereshchagin on his own initiative.
To recount the substance of the conversation:
Ts. Narkhuu – I wanted to meet with you to discuss Sino-Soviet relations in 1981. You have met with us on many occasions regarding this question, I remember you gave me a lot of important information. Would you tell me about new aspects or changes in Sino-Soviet relations in 1981, and also to what extent the Chinese diplomats in Moscow observe your internal laws, regulations and rules, and how they treat your comrades working in Beijing?
Vereshchagin – There are no changes to talk about in 1981. The Chinese continue their general line as before, and in these circumstances, there is no reason to hope that there will be positive changes in Sino-Soviet relations.
Our Ambassador in Beijing is received at the level of the deputy foreign minister. We also receive their Ambassador at the same level. There was a 300 million ruble trade turnover last year, but trade in 1981, added to the left-over from the previous year, came up to 170 million rubles, falling generally. The Chinese are proposing to change the practice of accounting for trade in convertible rubles.
[52]
This will not be decided this year; 1982 trade will be carried by clearing. The Chinese purpose some basic machines, machine parts, timber processing machines, various fertilizers, and some colored metals. Looking at the list for goods to be purchased in 1982, they come up to about 100 million rubles.
Our two countries have no connections along scientific and technical lines, there is nothing to boast of in terms of athletes' [exchange]. We only invite the Chinese athletes to participate in competitions which we organize along the international lines. The Chinese side also invites our athletes.
In terms of the border, there was no special conflict or incident in 1981. As before the Chinese side projects signal lights to guide ships to our control line, and puts up fishing nets across the whole width of the river. We do not exaggerate these matters.
Although we have put a proposal to the Chinese side in September to renew border talks, they have not given a clear answer until now. They are telling us that they are “studying” it [and that] “the leadership has not decided”. They are also asking: “what's new in your proposal”, and try to investigate our position.
The Chinese are continuing with their propaganda campaign against the Soviet Union. For example, just Renmin Ribao publishes 200 small and large articles against us each month. You comrades know that we do not reply to each and every one of them. There was an article in the No. 10 issue of this year's “Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn” by P. Dalnev. This was developed with direct participation of our department (the name means Pervyi Dalnevostochnnyi [First Far Eastern Department]).
Regarding consulate matters, we gave the Chinese side a memorandum protesting prosecution and imprisonment of Soviet nationals in China, that they do not allow our Embassy officials to meet with them [Soviet nationals] or to go to Xinjiang. We think there may be approximately 20,000 Soviet nationals in China. This year we also approved new rules, by which we do not allow Chinese nationals resident in the USSR to enter the Chinese Embassy.
So to speak of Sino-Soviet relations, this is all one has to say – with this he finished the official information.
Ts. Narkhuu expressed his gratitude.
ACQUAINTED Ts. NARKHUU
RECORDED BY P. URJINLKHUNDEV
MPR Embassy in the Soviet Union
Meeting, record of conversation
November 16, 1981 Moscow
Sino-Soviet trade, 1981
On November 16, 1981 Embassy counselor Ts. Narkhuu met with the Deputy Head of the USSR MFA Boris Nikolaevich Vereshchagin on his own initiative.
To recount the substance of the conversation:
Ts. Narkhuu – I wanted to meet with you to discuss Sino-Soviet relations in 1981. You have met with us on many occasions regarding this question, I remember you gave me a lot of important information. Would you tell me about new aspects or changes in Sino-Soviet relations in 1981, and also to what extent the Chinese diplomats in Moscow observe your internal laws, regulations and rules, and how they treat your comrades working in Beijing?
Vereshchagin – There are no changes to talk about in 1981. The Chinese continue their general line as before, and in these circumstances, there is no reason to hope that there will be positive changes in Sino-Soviet relations.
Our Ambassador in Beijing is received at the level of the deputy foreign minister. We also receive their Ambassador at the same level. There was a 300 million ruble trade turnover last year, but trade in 1981, added to the left-over from the previous year, came up to 170 million rubles, falling generally. The Chinese are proposing to change the practice of accounting for trade in convertible rubles.
[52]
This will not be decided this year; 1982 trade will be carried by clearing. The Chinese purpose some basic machines, machine parts, timber processing machines, various fertilizers, and some colored metals. Looking at the list for goods to be purchased in 1982, they come up to about 100 million rubles.
Our two countries have no connections along scientific and technical lines, there is nothing to boast of in terms of athletes' [exchange]. We only invite the Chinese athletes to participate in competitions which we organize along the international lines. The Chinese side also invites our athletes.
In terms of the border, there was no special conflict or incident in 1981. As before the Chinese side projects signal lights to guide ships to our control line, and puts up fishing nets across the whole width of the river. We do not exaggerate these matters.
Although we have put a proposal to the Chinese side in September to renew border talks, they have not given a clear answer until now. They are telling us that they are “studying” it [and that] “the leadership has not decided”. They are also asking: “what's new in your proposal”, and try to investigate our position.
The Chinese are continuing with their propaganda campaign against the Soviet Union. For example, just Renmin Ribao publishes 200 small and large articles against us each month. You comrades know that we do not reply to each and every one of them. There was an article in the No. 10 issue of this year's “Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn” by P. Dalnev. This was developed with direct participation of our department (the name means Pervyi Dalnevostochnnyi [First Far Eastern Department]).
Regarding consulate matters, we gave the Chinese side a memorandum protesting prosecution and imprisonment of Soviet nationals in China, that they do not allow our Embassy officials to meet with them [Soviet nationals] or to go to Xinjiang. We think there may be approximately 20,000 Soviet nationals in China. This year we also approved new rules, by which we do not allow Chinese nationals resident in the USSR to enter the Chinese Embassy.
So to speak of Sino-Soviet relations, this is all one has to say – with this he finished the official information.
Ts. Narkhuu expressed his gratitude.
ACQUAINTED Ts. NARKHUU
RECORDED BY P. URJINLKHUNDEV
Mongolian embassy official and Deputy Head of the USSR MFA meet to discuss Sino-Soviet relations. The latter notes that the Chinese have not had a change in their attitude or policy, so no positive changes can be expected. Issues related to trade, both physical, technical and scientific, are discussed.
Associated Places
Document Information
Source
Mongolian Foreign Ministry Archive, Ulaanbaatar, fond 2, dans 1, kh/n 458. Obtained and translated for CWIHP by Sergey Radchenko.
Original Archive
Rights
The History and Public Policy Program welcomes reuse of Digital Archive materials for research and educational purposes. Some documents may be subject to copyright, which is retained by the rights holders in accordance with US and international copyright laws. When possible, rights holders have been contacted for permission to reproduce their materials.
To enquire about this document's rights status or request permission for commercial use, please contact the History and Public Policy Program at [email protected].