China and the West

Russell, Bertrand. Deliver China from her bondage : peace or shame for Britain ? [ID D28425].
What has been happening recently in China appears to have taken our governing classes by surprise. 'The Times' on July 3 began a leading article with the words : 'something quite new is happening in China'. Those who have taken the trouble to study modern China are not in any degree surprised by recent events.
The British in China are broadly of three classes, traders, officials and missionaries. Of these the traders are the worst and most ignorant, the missionaries the most humane and the best informed. But all three classes, for varying reasons, have a conservative bias. Traders and officials regret the Manchu Empire, because it was weak externally, but strong enough internally to enforce obedience to concessions made to foreigners. Missionaries cannot be expected to like the fact that Young China, largely from patriotic motives, is becoming more and more anti-Christian. Nevertheless, the missionaries have shown themselves far more liberal in the present crisis, than the traders and officials. This is largely because they have a real contact with the Chinese, and because their activities consist in persuading, not in coercing. The contempt for Young China among the other sections of Anglo-Chinese is astonishing.
Recent events are a continuation of the movement which had a spectacular beginning with the Revolution of 1911, and has since had several notable effects on Chinese politics. It was Young China which caused the Chinese Government not to sign the Versailles Treaty, because that Treaty handed Shantung to Japan, as a reward to the Chinese for their participation in the war. It was Young China which caused the overthrow of the An-Fu (Pro-Japanese) Party in 1920, the method being propaganda by students among the soldiers. It was Young China which stirred up the movement which ended with the restoration of Shantung to China.
Nevertheless, the British in China have continued to speak of Young China with contempt, and to treat with disdain every Chinese who has received and education on Western lines. If our officials could have spared a little time from polo and bridge, they would have discovered the un-wisdom of this attitude. But the upper-class Briton is encased in idleness and superciliousness. With a little sympathy and a little industry we could avoid disaster in Asia ; but there seems no hope that either will be forthcoming so long as we continue to believe that our public schools produce heaven-sent rulers, who must be allowed to rule 'inferior' races.
Mixed with a wholly groundless contempt, both in India and China, is an ever-present fear, which must always exist where a small governing aristocracy oppresses a large population, and especially where the aristocracy is of an alien race. The shooting in Shanghai was obviously unwise from the standpoint of British imperialism ; so was the shooting in Canton. In both cases, terror caused the officials in charge to lose their heads. When they had killed so many Chinese as to rouse resentment throughout the country, they set up the plea of 'British women and children in danger'. On this plea it is urged that we must go on with the bad work. Any suggestion that the Chinese have a point of view is treated as treachery. The Archdeacon of Hong Kong was rated by Sir John Jordan as if he had been a naughty boy, because he was reported (apparently inaccurately to have said that the Chinese students had a serious grievance. Very instructive is the letter sent by the British Consul-General to the Government of Canton the day before the shooting at Shameen (the European quarter of Canton). I quote from the 'Times' of June 25 :
I learn from sources which I have every reason to believe trustworthy that in the course of a patriotic demonstration, arranged for to-morrow, the student element intend to make martyrs of themselves by attacking the bridges leading to Shameen… Any attempt to penetrate into the British Concession of Shameen will be resisted by force of arms… I write in this serious strain so that it may not be said hereafter that brutal Imperialist rifles wantonly massacred unoffending Chinese youth.
Nevertheless the Europeans were accused of firing first, not by the Chinese merely, but by the Canton Christian College. In this country we have not been allowed to see their statement, although it has apparently been published in America. So at least one gathers from the 'Times' of June 27, whose Hong Kong correspondent says that the Vice-President subsequently withdrew his signature.
This shows that the truth is doubtful, but British readers are not allowed to know the evidence on the side of the Chinese.
Evidently the British Government, from the standpoint of British interests, is behaving with the utmost unwisdom both in India and in China. Neither the officials on the spot nor the Cabinet at home seem able to adapt themselves to the post-war situation in Asia. In the Near East, the Treaty of Sèvres and the opposition to Turkish nationalism was a costly blunder, now universally admitted. In Persia, everything we thought we had gained by the war has been lost to America or Russia. Japan has been alienated by our policy since the Washington Conference, and especially by the Singapore base. In India and China, the war was regarded as proving the moral bankruptcy of European civilization, and the prestige of the white man was destroyed. Amritsar, and its counterparts in China, have failed to restore belief in our moral superiority.
If we are to avoid a conflict, almost sure to end in defeat, there is nothing for it but to abate our Imperial pride and treat with Indians and Chinese on equal terms. The late Mr. Das made a conciliatory overture, to which we have made no response, and it seems that we shall persist in this ungraciousness. This is madness. The methods of Clive and Warren Hastings are not suited to our age, but our Conservatives have learned nothing during the last one hundred and fifty years. Race pride and caste pride are greater obstacles to friendly relations with Asian than are the economic motives of exploitation. Very soon we shall have no chance to exploit either India or China, unless we learn to treat both countries with less haughtiness.
It is remarkable, and very serious from a British point of view, that the present agitation in China is directed especially against the British. Although the trouble began in a Japanese mill, the Governmental action that has been taken has been mainly British ; the Japanese, since the Washington Conference, have been becoming increasingly liberal, and have not shown themselves anxious to take stringent action in China. With Japan neutral and Russia hostile, the British have no chance of succeeding in a high-handed policy towards China. After giving an example of brutality, they will have to retire covered with shame – unless, at this late date, wiser counsels should prevail.
So much for the folly of our Government's policy. But even if this policy could be successful, it would still deserve the severest condemnation. Take first the industrial issue. It is pretended by official apologists that the British mills are better than others, and that British employers are longing to introduce humane Factory Acts, but cannot get the Chinese to agree. But, as Mr. C.R. Buxton points out in the 'Times' (July 3), the very largest number of children under twelve employed in any one mill in Shanghai are employed in a British mill. The produce of the Shanghai mills competes with Lancashire, and the bad industrial conditions are diametrically opposed to the interests of British Labour.
A have been taken to task for stating that young China regards the industrial issue as important. I repeat, with the utmost emphasis, that it is regarded as of the utmost importance. The great majority of Chinese students are Socialists, and are keenly alive to the evils of capitalism. They do not talk freely to those whom they regard as representatives or agents of foreign Capitalism, and these men often remain ignorant of the real views of their pupils. But in China opposition to Capitalism is naturally bound up with opposition to foreign domination, since it is the foreigner who is forcing capitalist exploitation upon the Chinese.
To treat Chinese nationalism as a crime is both ridiculous and short-sighted. For the last hundred years China has been weak, and white men have profited by her weakness to inflict intolerable humiliations. But China's weakness was merely governmental : the people are vigorous, industrious, patient and more numerous than those of any other country ; moreover, they possess abundance of raw materials. They have therefore every non-political element of strength. The one thing hitherto lacking si being supplied by foreign oppression.
China is demanding only what every independent country possesses already ; the Japanese at one time suffered the same disabilities, but secured their rights by creating a strong army and navy. Is this the only argument to which our Government will listen ? If so, it is likely before long to be forthcoming. Russia has freed herself from economic bondage to the West ; China inevitably will do, and will at the same time acquire full political liberty. With Russia and China pointing the way, India will find a method of emancipation from British rule. It is just that these things should happen, and it is the interests of mankind ; moreover, whether we oppose them or not, they will happen. Would it not be better to help them to take place peacefully, rather than to offer a resistance which must be costly, shameful, and in the end futile ?