“China asserts herself : imperialism in a quandary” (Publication, 1925)
Year
1925
Text
Russell, Bertrand. China asserts herself : imperialism in a quandary. In : The new leader ; vol. 12, no 9 (Aug. 28 1925). (Russ299)
Type
Publication
Contributors (1)
Russell, Bertrand
(Trelleck, Monmouthsire 1872-1970 Plas Penrhyn bei Penrhyndeudraeth, Wales) : Philosoph, Logistiker, Mathematiker, Literaturnobelpreisträger ; Dozent Cambridge, Oxford, London, Harvard University, Chicago, Los Angeles, Beijing
Subjects
Philosophy : Europe : Great Britain
Chronology Entries (1)
| # | Year | Text | Linked Data |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1925.08.28 |
Russell, Bertrand. China asserts herself : Imperialism in a quandary [ID D28424]. The Canton Government's embargo upon British and Japanese shipping has come as a surprise, and neither the friends nor the enemies of China in this country seem to know what line to take. The friends of China are disposed to think that the Cantonese have made a mistake, but this view is hardly borne out by the perplexities of China's enemies, as illustrated by the comments of the Conservative Press and the inaction of the British Government. It is evident that the Canton Government thinks the moment propitious for bringing to an end a long series of affronts inflicted by Hong-Kong. But in order to understand the situation, it is necessary to bear in mind a few historical facts, which are not widely known in this country. Hong-Kong was acquired by the British in 1841 as a result of the Opium War of 1840. It was at the time a barren island, but we made of it a great city, with dockyards, naval arsenal, and the Hong-Kong and Shanghai Bank. For some reason which I have never understood, we think the Chinese ought to be grateful to us on this account. The population of Hong-Kong is over 600,000, and its trade, before the recent troubles, was about £200 millions per annum. There is a Government opium monopoly. Child-slavers in the colony was abolished in 1922, as a result of an agitation ; a British naval officer was recalled because his wife took part in the protest. Corruption Frustrated. Some distance up the river from Hong-Kong stands Canton ; their geographical relations are like those of London and the Isle of Sheppey. The population of Canton (which is the capital of the province of Kwangtung) is about 1,300,000. There is a small foreign concession, called Shameen ; the remainder of the city is purely Chinese. There is a railway from Canton to Kowloon (on the mainland close to Hong-Kong), but there is no railway from Canton into the interior, although one has long been projected. The prosperity of Hong-Kong has always depended upon failure to develop Canton. If Canton had docks suitable for large ocean-going vessels, commerce would have no need to use Hong-Kong. This would be still more the case if railway communications were developed. It has, therefore, naturally been our policy to embarrass Canton, and to hamper its development unless under British auspices. For a moment, complete success seemed within our grasp. Immediately after the war, we negotiated with the corrupt militarists who then controlled Canton, a concession known as the Cassel Agreement, which would have given us a virtual monopoly of the railways and mines in the province of Kwangtung. But in 1920, before this Agreement could be ratified, Sun Yat-Sen acquired control of Canton, and very properly refused to ratify. This was the initial cause of our hostility to him. Sun Yat-Sen's Government, and the present Government, which is its legitimate successor, have never been recognized by the Powers. On this ground, the present action of Canton is regarded as piracy, not war, so that anybody supporting it can be hanged as a common criminal. Non-recognition is very serious for any Chinese Government, because the foreigners collect the customs and the salt tax, which form the bulk of the normal revenue, and the proceeds are not handed over to a Government which the Powers dislike. Ever since Sun Yat-Sen's acquisition of power in Canton, the proceeds of these taxes in the South have been kept on deposit in the Hong-Kong and Shanghai Bank, to be handed over as soon as there is a government bad enough to win our approval. Official apologists, of course, pretend that they are guided solely by legal considerations in giving or witholding recognition from various Chinese Governments, but this is quite untrue. Mr. Henry K. Norton, formerly a Professor at Tsing-hua College, as the result of a prolonged and careful study, came to the conclusion that the Canton Government was the only one in China that could validly claim to be legal. Rival Governments The Revolution of 1911, led by Sun Yat-Sen, led to the overthrow of the monarchy and the election of a Parliament. The majority in the Parliament belonged to the progressive Kuo-min-tang Party, and opposed Yuan Shi-kai's attempts to make himself autocrat. He, therefore, illegally dissolved the Parliament. He was greatly admired by the British, and his autocracy was unquestioningly recognized as the legal government of China. It is from his usurpation that subsequent Peking governments have derived their claim to legality. But Parliament refused to regard itself as dissolved, and the partisans of the Kuo-min-tang refuge at Canton. After various vicissitudes they established themselves under the leadership of Sun Yat-Sen in 1920. Their claim to legality is therefore at least as good as that of Peking. The Canton government has been liberal and mildly socialistic ; force of circumstances has driven it to seek the alliance of the Bolsheviks. Among these circumstances, not the least effectual has been the hostility of Hong-Kong. A Fascist militia was organized at Canton among the conservative plutocracy, with the help of a Chinese employed by the Hong-Kong and Shanghai Bank ; its purpose was to overthrow Sun Yat-Sen. A European ship full of arms arrived at Canton, with its cargo consigned to these Fascisti ; we were furious when the Canton Government prevented the arms from being delivered. Checkmate We might have succ4eeded in establishing a Government of corrupt reactionary militarists at Canton, but for two circumstances. The first of these was the attitude of America. Decent Americans who know China hate us for our brutality. Other Americans hate us as trade rivals. Both combine in wishing to develop Canton at the expense of Hong-Kong. While I was in China, Messrs. Morgan, the bankers, sent a representative to China on behalf of the Consortium, and he spent a considerable part of his time in Canton. What he did there I do not know, but perhaps readers can guess. The other circumstance which stood in our way was the sudden defection of Feng, the Christian General, who turned Bolshevik and carried the Pekin Government with him, thus removing the ground of quarrel between North and South. At this juncture, when everything was going against British imperialist designs, the British in control of the Municipal Council in Shanghai shot down a number of unarmed students without warning. The Municipal Council claimed to be an independent Power, and refused to submit to the report of the inquiry instituted by the Diplomatic Body ; their independence, however did not go so far as to abstain from demanding to be protected by all the navies of the world. From Shameen, the European quarter of Canton, a large number of Chinese were shot down, in self-defence, so we say ; but the American missionaries on the spot reported otherwise. The strike in Hong-Kong connected with these incidents has been so complete as to paralyse trade entirely ; it is estimated that our traders in Hong-Kong are losing £400,000 a day. Our Government and our reactionaries are completely nonplussed. If we fight China, we must also fight Russia ; our Tories would like nothing better, but they know that Labour would not tolerate such a thing, and that therefore they must be defeated, as they were when they supported Denikin and Wrangel. Moreover, they are not, as then, supported by the other Powers. The French have no interest in the quarrel ; the Americans are definitely hostile to us, both for idealistic reasons and for reasons of self-interest. The Japanese, at first sight, seem to be involved on our side, but there are reasons why they should act independently. Since we terminated the Alliance and started to make a great naval base at Singapore, they have no reason to love us. They naturally dislike our position in Hong-Kong, and they are rivals for the China trade. Moreover, since the Washington Conference, they have been driven by fear of isolation into a more friendly policy towards Russia and China. We cannot therefore count upon them to help us in our dirty work. No wonder our Government is puzzled ; no wonder our reactionary Press screams in impotent fury. A Simple Remedy There is one line of action which has not occurred to any of them, although it would put an end to the whole trouble in a week. The line of action I mean is the adoption of friendliness, common justice, and common honesty. Let us accept the report of the diplomatic inquiry into the Shanghai shooting, and act upon it ; let us cease to foment civil war at Canton, and loyally accept the existing Canton Government as at least the de facto authority, to which its quota of the Customs revenue should be given ; les us concert with America proposals for the gradual abolition of extra-territoriality, say by subjecting Europeans, for a time, to European judges appointed by and responsible to the Chinese Government. Let us not leave our policy to be decided by Admirals on the spot, as we are doing at present. At least so it appears from the sinister statement. ('Times', Aug. 20) that Vice-Admiral Sir Edwyn S. Alexander-Sinclair 'would take such steps as he thought fit for the protection of British shipping without first consulting the Government'. We must instruct correspondents of important newspapers not to write, as the 'Times' Peking correspondent did in the issue of August 20, 'extremists are endeavouring by misrepresentation to establish the view in Europe and America that the Treaties operate only to the advantage of foreigners and are oppressive to China. So it might be said of all the nursery rules imposed upon children by their elders'. The Chinese are not children, and it is not the practice in nurseries to shoot children in the back with rifle bullets. Our rich men must learn to treat the Chinese justly and as equals, or must put up with losing their money. I fear they will find the second alternative the less painful of the two. |
|
Cited by (1)
| # | Year | Bibliographical Data | Type / Abbreviation | Linked Data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2000- | Asien-Orient-Institut Universität Zürich | Organisation / AOI |
|