CHAPTER XXIV THE HUGHES-ROOT DOCTRINE Washington, February 1, 1922: The fifth plenary session held today might well be called the "open door session," although part of it was also devoted to report on the limitation of naval armament. The session lasted almost four hours, three of which were consumed by reports on agreements and resolutions directly or indirectly bearing upon the question of the open door. These agreements and resolutions, reported to the Conference by Secretary Hughes, may be summed up as follows: 1. The Hughes resolution for enforcing the open 'door. 2. The Hughes resolution for listing China's exist ing and future commitments. 3. The Root resolution for preventing the creation of spheres of influence. 4. Resolution for the removal of foreign troops and police in China. 5. Resolution for the abolition of foreign post offices in China. 6. Announcement that Japan and China had composed their differences concerning Shantung, thereby formally and definitely abolishing the sphere of influence which was originally established by Germany, and to which Japan succeeded by virtue of the Versailles Treaty of Peace. 7. Announcement by Mr. Balfour that, following Japan's example, England would give up the leased territory of Weihaiwei in Shantung. The five resolutions above mentioned had been adopted by the Far Eastern Committee at various times, and were reported to this plenary session only as a matter of form. These resolutions, together with the Japanese renunciation of Shantung rights and the British relinquishment of Weihaiwei, mark the beginning of a new era in the history of China. In the happy language of Secretary Hughes, they will make the open door "not only a motto but also a fact." Nothing can be a more auspicious augury for the inauguration of this new era and for the practical enforcement of the open door doctrine than the Japanese withdrawal from Shantung and the British evacuation of Weihaiwei, thus eliminating two of five leased territories in China. The remaining three are the French territory at Kwangchow Bay, the British territory of Kaulung, and the Japanese territory of Kwangtung (Port Arthur and Dairen). When, on December 3, the Chinese delegation argued before the Far Eastern Committee for the abolishment of leased territories, M. Viviani, the French delegate, was the first to respond, stating that France would give up Kwangchow Bay. This was followed by Mr. Balfour's statement that England might relinquish her claim to Weihaiwei, but could not abandon the Kaulung Peninsula. (See Appendix VII.) Mr. Hanihara, the Japanese delegate, announced that Japan would give up Kiaochow, the former German territory in Shantung, but was not in a position to consider the surrender of the Kwangtung territory on the tip of South Manchuria. (See Appendix VII.) After listening to the British and Japanese statements, M. Viviani made a second statement, qualifying the first one and announcing that France would do as the other Powers did. This meant that France would hold Kwangchow Bay as long as Britain and Japan held Kaulung and Kwangtung, respectively. It is, however, likely that France will give up Kwangchow Bay, for she has no practical use for it. There has been a vast difference between the European and the Japanese methods of acquiring Chinese territories. In the case of England and France, the leased territories were wrested from the unwilling hand of China. They involved no sacrifice whatever on the part of the Powers which acquired them. On the contrary Japan took neither Kiaochow near Port Arthur from China. She took Port Arthur from Russia after a titanic war waged to preserve China's integrity. To her that war meant a sacrifice of 100,000 lives and a billion dollars of gold. Again, Kiaochow was taken by Japan from Germany at a considerable sacrifice of lives and treasure. The history of leased territories in China is an interesting, almost fascinating, study. England was the first to appear upon China's "happy hunting ground" of international rivalry for concessions. It was in 1861 that she leased the tip of the Kaulung Peninsula to protect Hongkong, as well as to extend her influence to Canton. Thirty-five years later this small leased territory was greatly enlarged. In those days France was not friendly to England, but was in alliance with Russia, the traditional enemy of Great Britain. Naturally the Quai d'Orsay closely watched every move taken by England on the political chessboard of China. When, therefore, England obtained the lease of the Kaulung Peninsula, France saw the necessity of counteracting it by leasing a territory on the coast of South China. The result was the French lease of Kwangchow Bay in 1898. In seeking concessions and establishing spheres of influence in the South, France cooperated closely with Russian activities in North China. It was the time when the chancelleries of Europe were contemplating the possible disruption of China, each eager to stake out for itself as wide a territory as possible. Russia was busy absorbing China's outlying possessions in the North. The empire builders of St. Petersburg were dreaming of the day when the Czar might wield his scepter not only over Mongolia and Manchuria but over Peking and even central China. In the attempt to realize that dream, Russia relied upon the cooperation of France which was operating in South China. Indeed Russia and France agreed upon a policy the purpose of which was to effect a junction between their respective spheres of influence, and thus curb or split the British sphere in the Yangtse Valley. Every move was made with that end in view, France ascending northward from the South, Russia descending south ward from the North. Various railway concessions obtained in China by Russia and France in those days were nothing but a part of that vast program. The French occupation of Kwangchow Bay and the adjacent territory had for its purpose the execution of that program. Today the French position in South China has been greatly affected by the elimination of her partner, Russia, as an empire builder. Russia, by dint of her vast territory and great potential strength, may still be regarded with fear in Manchuria and Mongolia, but as far as her scheme of joining hands with France in Central China is concerned, it has been destroyed beyond any hope of resuscitation. With the destruction of the Russo-French empire scheme, the raison d'être of the Kwangchow leased territory is gone. In this fact can we not see the reason why M. Viviani so readily offered that territory to China? The surrender of Kiaochow and Weihaiwei by Japan and England, respectively, has a significance much greater than can be gauged by their area or the material benefit they may confer upon China. The British territory of Weihaiwei has an area of 285 square miles, and the Japanese territory of Kaiochow 200 square miles. In the vast dominion of China they are but specks of land. But their restoration to China has a great moral and political significance. No one can fail to realize this fact who has even a slight idea of what the Powers were doing to China only a score of years ago. Up to the time of the Russo-Japanese War all European nations were thinking and talking of what they could take away from China. None of them even so much as whispered what it might give up in the interest of China. The Powers, one and all, virtually helped themselves to whatever appealed to their fancy or their sense of usefulness. Nothing drives this point home more forcibly to our minds than the following chronological table: England takes Hongkong after the Opium War...... .... China cedes Maritime Province to Russia 1842 1858 1860 |