Is the treaty of nanking of the Opium War an unequal treaty?

Treaty of nanking is undoubtedly? Very unequal? Treaty, but since the article mentioned "treaty of nanking" was misunderstood by some people? Equality treaty? Then I'll tell you the biggest joke in treaty of nanking.

The joke is: Because there were no translators in the Qing government at that time, the terms of treaty of nanking were all made by? Maruhan, Karl Gutzlaff and Rob Yong (Chinese name, English)? Three people translated it. In order to make the Qing government accept the treaty properly, the three men will

Phrases in translated articles are replaced by neutral words and commendatory words. As a result, the Chinese version of treaty of nanking seems to have no major problems, while the English version of treaty of nanking is an out-and-out unequal treaty, and we have successfully lost Hong Kong Island.

Observing whether diplomatic treaties between countries belong to equality treaties, the standard is actually similar to observing commercial contracts. That is to say, it depends on whether the rights and obligations of the countries concerned are equal in this diplomatic treaty. In short, if it is a Sino-British equality treaty, then in the terms, the rights and interests that China gives Britain should also be given to China.

According to this very simple standard, the treaty of nanking unilaterally stipulated the rights of the British government and the people of China. For example, the British can live and trade freely in Guangzhou and Fuzhou and have historical jurisdiction. However, the treaty does not stipulate which British city will open its trading port to China, and the China government has consular jurisdiction in which British city, so it is a standard unequal treaty.

In order to help us understand, we can take an equality treaty signed by the Qing government in modern times as an example, that is, the Treaty on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between China and Japan of 187 1 year. In this treaty, all agreements on rights and obligations are bilateral. For example, China will open some cities to trade with Japan and give Japan consular jurisdiction in these cities. At the same time, Japan will open several cities to trade with China on the basis of reciprocity, and China people will also have consular jurisdiction in these Japanese cities.

Therefore, it is an ignorant view to divide the treaty of nanking and its supplementary rules into two different documents. According to treaty of nanking, the Qing Dynasty gained commercial benefits through foreign trade, so it ignored the inequality of this treaty and misinterpreted history.