‘Native’ Vladivostok vs. ‘Alien’ Dal’nii – the Pacific Porto-Franco and the Search for ‘Russian Interests’ in the Far East (1901–1904)

Abstract

ABSTRACTThis article examines the 1901–1904 discussions about free trade in the Priamur region and the territories in Chinese Manchuria leased to the Russian Empire. The discussions are placed in the contexts of nationalising empire, Russian imperialism, and cosmopolitan society of the globalised free port of Vladivostok. The piece traces the place of ideas about free trade in the social and political imagination of contemporaries in the Priamur region to show how these images were challenged by imperial expansion in Manchuria. It also analyses the rhetorical strategies used by regional actors to re-negotiate the borders of economic and political expansion, as well as the internal and external comparisons they made. The article demonstrates how debates about free trade in the Russian Far East offer deeper insight into how ideas about free trade and free ports as institutions affected not only the economic but social and political transformations in the late imperial period.KEYWORDS: Russian empirenationalismfree portsporto-francofree tradeimperialism AcknowledgementThe work on this paper was done in collaboration with the research group that has been supported by the Russian Science Foundation, grant № 23-28-00868 ‘Siberian and Far Eastern porto-franco regimes in the history of economic development of the Russian imperial periphery (second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries),' https://rscf.ru/project/23-28-00868/. As of 2023, I am not a full-time employee of the University of Tyumen, but I continue my collaboration with the individual researchers there. I thank the three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments, which helped to improve this article. I also thank Ismael Biyashev from the University of Michigan Ann Arbor for his comments on earlier drafts of this text.Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Burbank and Cooper, Empires in World History, 8.2 Gerasimov, Glebov, and Mogilner, “Speaking Economic,” 29–40.3 Trentmann, Free Trade Nation, 2–3, 138–9, 161–2.4 In the Russian Far East, realities actually resembled those of overseas colonies. Consider the logistics: in the 1880s, before the Trans-Siberian railroad was constructed, it took about 320 days to transport goods from Moscow to Vladivostok overland and 65–75 days by sending the goods over the ocean through Odessa. Statistics are from Dattan, Istoricheskii ocherk, 52.5 In relation to economics this was best shown by Ekaterina Pravilova’s study of the financial system of the Russian Empire (see Finansy imperii, 7–32, 163–4). However, historians also trace attempts of the state to manipulate the population; Yanni Kotsonis’s book on the Russian imperial and early Soviet taxation system concentrates on such universalising measures. See Kotsonis, States of Obligation, 24–50. For a detailed review of historiography about the Russian economic policies in the imperial borderlands, see Tsentr i regiony, 7–51.6 LeDonne, Forging a Unitary State, 3–4.7 Kivelson and Suny, Russia’s Empires, 75–88.8 The notion of the Priamur region typically related to the southern part of the Russian Far East, the territories that were annexed by the Russian Empire from the Qing Empire in the 1850s. However, these two notions were often interchangeable as the Priamur General Governorship, created in 1884, included other parts of the Russian Far East. Both the Russian Far East and Priamur region were typically considered a part of Siberia.9 The Russian encyclopaedic dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron from 1898 defined ‘portofranco’ (porto franko, port franc, Freihafen) as ‘a seaside harbour used for duty–free import of foreign and export of native goods’. See B-skii [Belkovskii], “Portofranko,” 604–5. Contemporary historiography defines it as ‘a special customs regime, which allowed duty-free import and trade of foreign goods on the territories of Amurskaia, Primorskaia, Zabaikal’skaia, and Iakutskaia oblast’s’. See Belyaeva, Ot porto-franko k tamozhne, 24. However, in the debates under consideration, the notion of ‘porto-franco’ often bore meanings that went beyond the formal definition. Contemporaries often understood free trade and porto-franco status as corresponding notions.10 Imperial expansion was legitimised, ‘sanctioned by the ploughman’. Such a vision of Siberia as a settler colony also awoke fears of separatism modelled on the example of other empires’ settler colonies, the Thirteen Colonies in particular. See Remnev, “‘Vdvinut’ Rossiiu v Sibir’,” 47–71.11 This discourse was produced by Siberian regionalist-minded intellectuals (known as oblastniki) who compared Siberia with the British and Spanish colonies. See Yadrintsev, Sibir’, kak koloniia, 436–8.12 Russian State Archive of the Far East (RGIA DV). F. 702. Op. 2. D. 456.13 Glebov, “Predislovie,” 7–13.14 Given that in 1897, 12,577 of 28,933 (43,5%) residents of Vladivostok were foreign, predominantly Qing subjects, it is scarcely surprising that the ‘Russianness’ of such localities as Vladivostok became a matter of discussion. For statistics see Poznyak, Inostrannye poddannye, 223.15 Wortman, Scenarios of Power, 245–62, 317–33, 411–3. For a good example of ‘Russian interests’ as a category of public debate about economics, see Agapov, “‘Zagovor’ Protiv Severa Rossii,” 73–96.16 Ananich and Gatrell, “Natsional’nye i vnenatsional’nye izmereniia,” 67–91. For a more detailed account of intellectual transformations in Russian economic thought, see Pravilova, The Ruble, 68–185.17 For more on the earlier discussions on the Far Eastern porto-franco, see Turbin, Dal’nevostochnoe Porto-Franko, 45–78.18 Palen, The Conspiracy of Free Trade, XXX.19 For more on patterns of trade, especially concerning the activities of the Russian-American company, see Bolkhovitinov, Istoriia russkoi Ameriki, 115–56.20 For free trade in Kamchatka, see Remnev, Rossiia Dal’nego Vostoka, 74–7.21 Ananich, “The Russian Economy and Banking System,” 399–400.22 Solonchenko, “Aziatskii tamozhennyi tarif,” 570–1.23 Dameshek and Remnev, Sibir’ v sostave Rossiiskoi imperii, 266–7.24 David Schimmelpenninck van der Oye used this term to refer Russian campaigns both in East and Central Asia. See Schimmelpenninck van der Oye, Toward the Rising Sun, 117.25 Bassin, Imperial Visions, 143–73. But policy in Central Asia was different, as shown below.26 For recent account of this expansion, see Morrison, The Russian Conquest, 4–5.27 This policy towards Central Asia was not constant and started to change in the late 1880s. For changes in the patterns of imperialism, see Novaia imperskaia istoriia, 252–7, 285–91.28 When studying contemporary special economic zones, the question of exploitation and risks for democracy are of primary interest among researchers. See Neveling, “Free Trade Zones,” 1007–16; Slobodian, Crack-Up Capitalism. In this discussion nation-centred analytical language is increasingly influential, as the topic evokes the image of a nation-state that carves out parts of its own territories, in which, for the sake of economic benefits, it gives up some degree of sovereignty and the supposedly equal rights of own citizenry. But empires were much more composite polities, in which differentiation was fundamental when it came to management of territories and the rights of local populations. It seems that the imperial perspective thus deconstructs the universality of implications about the role of free trade zones.29 For the ideological background of Muravyov-Amursky’s policies, see Turbin, Dal’nevostochnoe Porto-Franko, 45–78. For more on the general history of customs and free trade in the Russian Far East, see Belyaeva, Ot porto-franko k tamozhne.30 And, according to the Military Governor of Vladivostok, 4,698 of them were Chinese, 410 were Koreans, 445 were Japanese, and 95 were other foreigners, predominantly Germans (27), US citizens (12), Swedish (11), Danes (11), and British (10). See Prilozhenie, 9.31 Prilozhenie, 1–8.32 Dattan, Istoricheskii ocherk, 38–9.33 Using the term of the contemporary sources.34 In 1885, for instance, there were only six ‘bigger’ and eight ‘small’ Russian shops, in comparison to eight ‘bigger’ German shops and one ‘bigger’ and 79 ‘small’ Chinese shops. See Prilozhenie, Appendix [no pagination].35 The number of vessels coming to Vladivostok can be retrieved from Berezovskii, K voprosu, 4.36 Dattan, Istoricheskii ocherk, 78.37 Numerically, such civilian elites comprised tens and hundreds of people, not thousands. Statistics for a longer period are available in Poznyak, Inostrannye poddannye, 223–30.38 Wortman, Scenarios of Power, 245–316.39 For more on these Congresses and the issue of foreign subjects, see Turbin, “Between welcomed ‘foreigners’,” 141–5.40 RGIA. F. 40. Op. 1. D. 105. L. 16–33 [Response of the Priamur Governor-General to the Minister if Finances, 15 June 1886, № 2259], 219–28 ob. [Letter of the Governor-General to the Minister of Finances, 19 November 1891], 239–40 [Note from the Journal of the Committee of Ministers 28 April and 12 May 1892].41 Porto-franko na Dal’nem Vostoke, 31–100.42 Dattan, Istoricheskii ocherk, 68, 74, 112–3.43 He was even awarded with the title of Advisor in Commerce for various activities, including for writing this book. See Deeg, Kunst i Al’bers, 167.44 Porto-franko na Dal’nem Vostoke, 31–100.45 A combined 5.7 million roubles worth of goods passed through here in 1895: of this total, 3.3 million were in Russian and 2.4 million roubles in foreign goods. Dattan, Istoricheskii ocherk, 68, 74, 92.46 Schimmelpenninck van der Oye, Toward the Rising Sun, 24–41, 61–81.47 “O sooruzhenii,” 936.48 A porto-franco regime remained only in the far-away and sparsely populated Northern territories of the Russian Far East and Sakhalin Island. See “Ob oblozhenii,” 691.49 Witte even published own book about Friedrich List in 1889. See Witte, Natsional’naia ekonomiia.50 The term ‘counter-hegemonic globalisation’ comes from Evans, “Is an Alternative Globalization Possible?” 271–305.51 This is also seen in the haste with which the Russian Government strived to inform all interested parties about the promise of free trade. See Kotvich and Borodovskii, Liao-dun i ego porty, 9.52 For example, according to contemporaries, in a town of Nikol’sk (contemporary Ussuriisk), which was approximately 100 km away from Vladivostok, one pound of tea imported overland from Port Arthur (more than 1,000 km from Vladivostok as the crow flies) was sold for 50 kopeks, while the same volume of tea was taxed 86 kopecks when coming to Vladivostok, not to mention the cost of the tea itself. See Panov, “Vne kolei,” 1.53 “Protektsionnye kazusy II,” 1; Panov, “Vne kolei,” 1–2.54 Belyaeva, Ot porto-franko k tamozhne, 64–8.55 Lukoyanov, ‘Ne otstat’ ot derzhav … ’, 399.56 On the structural level this was a typical situation for an imperial setting, where centres of expert knowledge production and political power in the empire did not necessarily coincide either geographically or socially. See Glebov, “Siberian Ruptures,” 281–310.57 “Doklad g. Feigina ob Amurskoi torgovle,” 1–2; K. M-ov, “‘Otdavat’ li Amur v kabalu?” 2–4.58 For more on Panov’s activities in the 1880s, see Turbin, Dal’nevostochnoe Porto-Franko, 45–78.59 “Amurskie blagodeteli,” 4–6; Panov, “Nebol’shoi vyvod,” 4–5; Panov, “Amurskie patrioty,” 4–6; “Predstoiashchii s”ezd,” 3–4.60 Panov, in the antisemitic manner common for many in the Russian Empire, referred to allowing Jewish residence in Dal’nii, while legally they were not allowed to settle in Siberia.61 Panov, “O lishnem gorode Dal’nem,” 2.62 Panov, “Vne kolei,” 1–2; Panov, “Vne kolei II,” 1–2.63 Panov, “Vne kolei III,” 1–2.64 Troitskaya, “Birzha vo Vladivostoke,” 22–9.65 As Leonid Gorizontov has shown, the adjective ‘korennoi’ had distinct connotations with the imperial core, historical continuity, and ethnic purity. See Gorizontov, “The ‘Great Circle’,” 86–7.66 “Doklad Vladivostokskogo birzhevogo komiteta,” n.p.67 Dattan, Istoricheskii ocherk, 40.68 “Doklad Vladivostokskogo birzhevogo komiteta,” n.p.69 “Doklad Vladivostokskogo birzhevogo komiteta,” n.p.70 RGIA. F. 1622. Op. 1. D. 711 [Printed copy of the report of the Minister of Finance on a trip to the Far East, 1902]. Ll. 32–33, 36–40.71 RGIA. F. 1622. Op. 1. D. 711. Ll. 31–41.72 For a detailed overview of the work of the commission, see Belyaeva, “Mery k ograzhdeniiu,” 54–9. The work of the commission is summarised in the journals located in RGIA. F. 560. Op. 28. D. 935.73 RGIA. F. 560. Op. 28. D. 935. Ll. 22–50 [Minute-book no. 2 (Sessions on 4, 8, 12, and 20 March 1903. On the question of whether it is necessary to preserve customs taxation in the Priamur Territory, to strengthen the protection of the border, or to restore porto-franco)].74 RGIA. F. 560. Op. 28. D. 935. Ll. 59–75 [Minute-book no. 4 (Meetings 27 February, 14 March, 15 April, and 3 May 1903. On the abolition of Article 1370 of the Customs Charter on the land border duty-free passage of Chinese goods)].75 RGIA. F.560. Op. 28. D. 935. Ll. 76–86ob. [Minute-book no. 5 (Meetings on 20 March and 2 and 15 April 1903. On the issue of measures to protect the interests of Vladivostok and the development of its trade)].76 “Doklad Vladivostokskogo birzhevogo komiteta,” n.p. The conflict between the ‘purely economic rationale’ and moral visions later became extremely visible at the IV Khabarovsk Congress. See Turbin, Ideologicheskie i politicheskie faktory, 130–1.77 RGIA. F. 560. Op. 28. D. 935. Ll. 59–75, 76–86ob.78 RGIA. F. 560. Op. 28. D. 935. Ll. 76–86ob. For the published texts of the projects and the compromise text, see Dlia pol’zy i protsvetaniia, 165–70, 180–4.79 Trudy [The book is divided into sections with different pagination], Section “Programma IV Khabarovskogo s”ezda,” 3; Section “Predislovie,” 4–5; Section “Zasedaniia IV Khabarovskogo s”ezda,” 15.80 Belyaeva, “Porto-franko v sisteme,” 55–64.81 Trudy, Section “Doklady i materialy,” 178–9.82 Trudy, Section “Doklady i materialy,” 211–2.83 Trudy, Section “Zasedaniia IV Khabarovskogo s”ezda,” 7.84 Trudy, Section “Doklady i materialy,” 189–90.85 Trudy, Section “Doklady i materialy,” 193–7.86 Dattan’s example also shows the importance of ideology to the discussion. Those who had calculable vested interest could be way more flexible (and sometimes easily shifted to protectionism when needed) than those who had ideas as their primary motivations.87 I. Kharlamov and M. Gontsov. Their sphere of activity is mentioned in the local advertisement: Adres-kalendar’, Advertisement section at the end, n.p.88 Trudy, Section “Doklady i materialy,” 197–8.89 Trudy, Section “Doklady i materialy,” 113–6.90 Trudy, Section “Sektsiia IV,” 37–47.91 Trudy, Section “Obshchie sobraniia s”ezda,” 27.92 RGIA DV. F. 252. Op. 1. D. 4. Ll. 15–7 [Memorandum of the Vladivostok Exchange Committee to His Excellency Viceroy of His Imperial Majesty in the Far East].93 RGIA. F. 560. Op. 28. D. 935. L. 263–263ob. [Telegram of the collegiate assessor Protas’ev from Port Arthur addressed to the Head of the Office of the Minister of Finance, 12 September 1903, № 411.].94 Korostovets, Rossiia na Dal’nem Vostoke, 52; Lukoyanov, ‘Ne otstat’ ot derzhav … ’, 452, 521–3.95 Belyaeva, Ot porto-franko k tamozhne, 117.96 RGIA. F. 1337. Op. 1. D. 165. Ll. 2–3 [Telegram of the General-Admiral Alekseev dated 16 April 1904, No. 2365].97 RGIA. F. 1337. Op. 1. D. 165. L. 12.98 Deeg, Kunst i Al’bers, 194–6.99 For the late discussions, see Turbin, Ideologicheskie i politicheskie faktory, 176–214.100 Novaia imperskaia istoriia, 415–20.Additional informationFundingThe work on this paper was done in collaboration with the research group that has been supported by the Russian Science Foundation, grant № 23-28-00868 ‘Siberian and Far Eastern porto-franco regimes in the history of economic development of the Russian imperial periphery (second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries)', https://rscf.ru/project/23-28-00868/.