The Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance: Negotiations, Railways and Troops

After the People’s Republic of China was established, relations with the Soviet Union required new political and legal arrangements. Mao Zedong traveled to Moscow in December 1949 to discuss security, credit and bilateral relations with Stalin. The treaty that the Soviet Union had concluded with China’s Nationalist government in 1945, along with the Chinese Changchun Railway and Port Arthur, still had to be addressed. Economic recovery was important to China, as was changing existing foreign interests.

The Soviet record of their meeting on 16 December shows Mao emphasizing China’s need for several peaceful years to restore production. Stalin initially favored retaining the old treaty’s legal form, concerned that changes might lead Britain and the United States to reopen questions connected with the Yalta arrangements. The record shows concerns and alternatives under negotiation before the new treaty was finalized.

References: [1]

By 22 January 1950, Zhou Enlai had joined the Moscow negotiations. Stalin said at the meeting that the old treaty had been framed by the war against Japan and should be revised as circumstances changed. The parties agreed that Zhou and Soviet foreign minister Vyshinsky would prepare the new text, with political, economic, cultural and military cooperation all under discussion.

Railway administration revealed specific differences. The Chinese proposed a Chinese head of management and discussed increasing China’s share of investment; the Soviet side emphasized equal participation and rotation of management positions. Credit negotiations also considered industrial equipment and military supplies. General declarations of friendship became questions of management authority, financing, procurement lists and deadlines, ultimately addressed in several connected documents.

References: [1]

Zhou Enlai and Vyshinsky signed the Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance at the Kremlin on 14 February 1950. Its six articles framed security primarily around preventing renewed aggression by Japan and states acting in concert with Japan. If one party entered a state of war following such an attack, the other was to provide military and other assistance. The assistance clause was tied to these specified circumstances.

Other articles concerned a peace treaty with Japan, avoiding alliances and actions directed against the other party, consultation on major international issues of common interest, and economic and cultural cooperation. Economic cooperation was to observe equality, mutual benefit, respect for sovereignty and noninterference in internal affairs. The treaty’s term was thirty years, with five-year extensions if neither party gave notice of termination a year before expiry.

References: [2]

Article Six made entry into force dependent on ratification by both parties and separately provided for an exchange of instruments in Beijing. Both governments’ relevant bodies ratified the treaty on 11 April 1950, bringing it into force. Zhou and Soviet ambassador Roshchin exchanged the instruments in Beijing on 30 September. The announcement appeared in People’s Daily on 8 October, distinguishing the publication, exchange, entry-into-force and signature dates.

The documents signed alongside the treaty used different rules. The railway and Port Arthur–Dalian agreement took effect upon ratification. The credit agreement took effect upon signature while still requiring ratification and an exchange of instruments. These legal procedures distinguished the individual agreements within the 1950 settlement.

References: [2] [3]

The agreement on the Chinese Changchun Railway, Port Arthur and Dalian provided for joint railway rights and all railway property to pass to China after a peace treaty with Japan, no later than the end of 1952. Joint administration would continue until the transfer, with relevant management positions rotating periodically. Soviet withdrawal from Port Arthur initially had the same final deadline. Transfer of its installations involved China reimbursing restoration and construction expenses incurred since 1945. Dalian’s administration belonged to China, while a joint commission would arrange the transfer of property managed or leased by the Soviet side.

The credit agreement provided US$300 million at one percent annual interest, to be used in installments over five years from 1950 to pay for Soviet machinery, equipment and supplies. Separate agreements would determine types, prices and delivery schedules, with repayment also staged. It established a procurement and settlement mechanism rather than a single cash transfer on the day of signature.

References: [2]

In September 1952, another Sino-Soviet announcement assigned the railway transfer to a joint commission for completion before year-end. The final record, signed in Harbin on 31 December, listed trunk lines, rolling stock, land, buildings, power-generation facilities and communications installations among the transferred assets. One hundred and five handover records prepared by divisions and enterprises documented the individual transfers.

Joint administration ended at 18:00 Beijing time that day, and managers appointed by China’s Ministry of Railways took over. Financial settlement continued: the final record assigned staff to prepare the annual closing balance sheet and final report. Inventories, documentation, personnel and accounts were all needed to implement the transfer of sovereignty and management.

References: [4] [5]

Port Arthur followed a different path. In an exchange of notes dated 15 September 1952, China requested an extension of the Soviet withdrawal deadline, citing the absence of a comprehensive Japanese peace treaty with China and the Soviet Union and the related security situation. The Soviet side agreed. Both governments made the notes part of the 1950 Port Arthur agreement, modifying the original year-end deadline.

Withdrawal was completed in May 1955. A Xinhua dispatch from Lüda on 26 May reported that command personnel had left Port Arthur that afternoon, completing the departure of Soviet troops from the area. The scheduled railway handover and postponed withdrawal show an alliance whose concrete interests and implementation continued to require negotiation.

References: [4] [6]